[Just your average movie goer]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is widely regarded as awful rubbish and the worst of the Indiana Jones series - no contest. Many like myself, do not even consider it as a real Indiana Jones movie.

However, I do not believe it has ever been given the full grilling it so truly deserves. So I would like to use this movie to start a new series of posts on this forum called "Grill a Movie." If you would like to participate, write the name of the movie you wish to grill in the Topic Title section and write Grill a Movie in the Topic Description section.

Okay, so I would like to open the Grill a Movie posts with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. So without further ado....

The first thing wrong with this movie is the title - The Temple of Doooooom oooohhhh, scary..... it basically just says "Hello everyone, I am a B-Grade piece of trash. You can leave the cinema right now."

However, I sat through this thing recently (although I wish I had followed my parents' advice to avoid this movie entirely) and I was actually intrigued by the opening musical number. I thought maybe this thing might actually turn out to be clever.

Oh, how very wrong I was.

After the music dies, Indiana Jones makes his appearance and boy, he was bland as Roger Moore in this scene. There was no spark in this scene at all. And I was intrigued as to why he thought it was a good idea to exchange the urn of a Chinese Emperor's ashes for a diamond from a gangster. I'm sure had he taken this artifact to the national Chinese museum or an American museum back home, he would have got a very handsome reward for it.

After this, Indiana Jones uses Willie Scott as a hostage - which doesn't seem like the chivalrous Indiana Jones we saw in the original movie. And then he does something really stupid. He takes a sip of the drink that the bad guys had provided him with and surprise, surprise, it was poisoned. Indy, you twit.

Then his friend tries to give him the antidote - almost too convenient, isn't it? He just happened to have this antidote with him in case this happened. And his friend is shot! And he tragically dies in Indy's arms, but not before delivering some really bad Lucas-style dialogue "Into the great unknown, I go first." Yawn.

Then there is a stupid fight with lots of balloons and silliness.... yawn... before we meet Short Round in the getaway vehicle. I actually like Short Round. The kid who played him was really good. However, seeing the jeopardy that Spielberg and Lucas put him in later in the film, I think they should have left him out.

Do you like cute little children? Yes? Well, you'll love seeing cute little children getting tortured! Oh sorry, don't want to give things away too early...

Indy, Willie and Short Round then escape on a plane that has the gangsters men flying it. They fly it over India and then dump the fuel and abandon ship, so to speak. So Indy and his friends get in a rubber raft and fall 100 feet onto hard snow and SURVIVE. This may seem like it's taking our ability to suspend belief too far but it's nothing when compared to what happens a moment later - they fall 200 feet of a CLIFF onto a river. Hitting water after falling from a great height is tantamount to hitting concrete. So our trio should be dead at this point.

Unfortunately, that is not the case and so the awful movie drags on.

Indy and co meet an Old Indian Man. Old Indian Man says follow me to my village and they do. The village is poor and there is no plant life anywhere... meaning no food. Old Indian Man says "Bad guys stole our magic stones and our children. They are in Pankrot Palace. Go there and bring them back."

And thus the plot and the mystery is unravelled in thirty seconds and everything else hereafter is just a slow boring roll to an inevitable conclusion.

Indy doesn't want to help at first but then he thinks the rocks will win him fortune and glory. "Fortune and glory, kid." he tells Short Round, dumbing down dialogue even further.

Then for some reason, when he goes to Pankrot Palace, he brings Short Round and Willie along, so he can put them in jeopardy. Nice work, Indy. If he had any brains, he would have gone straight to Delhi and informed the British Viceroy, who could then send a few troops and resolve the matter in half a day. Hell, he could have sent the lady and the kid to do this while he investigated Pankrot himself.

But no, Indy is too dumb in this movie.

In the palace, the bad guys eat Monkey Brains, Snakes and Eye-Balls so there is no mystery about them. Then after dinner, Indy wants to have sex with Willie even though there is no chemistry between them. It is ridiculous and seeing this movie has been so badly dumbed down for kids, it (like a lot of other stuff in the film) is inappropriate.

But it's nothing because as we all know, we then proceed underground where we see a bunch of stupid looking people in stupid costumes and stupid make-up get together for a big ceremony in which an innocent man gets his heart ripped out of his chest and is then slowly burned alive, while Indy watches and does nothing.

This whole scene just leaves a bad taste in most people's mouths and that's fairly understandable. It's sick. Simply awful graituitous sickness, showing that some of the people involved in the film have really twisted, sick minds. And some of the people who enjoy this film are equally sick because they say stupid things like "The scene where the guy gets his heart ripped out is so cool." It is not cool, it is sick and demented. Also, I don't believe that they kill innocent people in the comic book Raiders of the Lost Ark.

While Temple of Doom is a different film, I believe that the first film in a series establishes some ground rules for the rest of the series. And these ground rules really should be followed.

In addition to this, I've heard Lucas often say that with The Temple of Doom, he was trying to make a darker film like The Empire Strikes Back. Well, you failed miserably, George. It is not a darker film. It is a sick film. And a really stupid one at that.

Anyway, at this point I would like to say how stupid it is that for the rest of this movie, we are basically stuck in this one location and it is not good. In Raiders, Indiana Jones travelled all over the world. Now, he is stuck in this underground temple for over an hour and it is the cheesiest looking set I'd seen before the Star Wars prequels. Fake white polyester with red disco lights and fake smoke. And having Mola Ram, bald twit in the plastic bull horn head-dress and his idiot goons does not help matters.

After the gratuitous human sacrifice, Indy and co are captured. This does not advance the plot in any way. It simply adds about half an hour of filler. After they escape, they are pretty much in the same position they were when they first stumbled into the temple - so it was a pretty lame as far as plot devices go.

Oh, yeah, and during the filler, Indy drinks some magic stuff and becomes EVIL ... whoaaaaa.... dumb-da-dumb-da-dumb....

Luckily Short Round knows that if a friend of yours becomes evil then all you have to do is whack him in the stomach with a burning torch and he'll become good again. I don't know how he knew that but it seemed to work for Indy.

Also, during this filler, we have to put up with an innane amount of voodoo bullshit that really shouldn't work. Voodoo can work in real life - I have heard about a few incidents in which people have died from voodoo curses and things like that. However, it's a phsychological thing - the people die because they believe in it so much. To give an example of how this works, a man accidentally locked himself in a fridge compartment on a train and froze to death. However, it was not on at the time so it was just normal room temperature. But he believed it so much, it physically affected him. Interesting, eh?

But Indy does not believe in magic and superstitious hocus-pocus.

Anyway, back to the story. Indy and co rescue all the slave children. It is remarkably easy and pathetic and then he fights a big thuggee while a little brat evil kid does Voodoo on him. It slows down the fight and is really annoying because I am very sick of this movie and wanting it to be over already - and this little shit is slowing it down.

Short Round then climbs up to the kid but doesn't kill him. No, he hits him with a torch and whoa, he becomes a good guy! Yay! And then there's a stupid little kids moment... to remind us all that while Raiders was made for all ages, this stupid flick was made solely for little kids (despite the fact that large chunks of it are entirely inapprorpriate for little kids... or anyone else for that matter).

Then Indy and co escape in a mine cart which is pretty boring. It's like watching someone on a rollercoaster. The cart always stays on the tracks so it's a pretty pointless scene. Then the cart goes over some lava and I wonder how the kids managed to make the track over the lava... but not for long as I really don't care.

Meanwhile, Mola Ram decides to trash his own mine to kill Indy and smashes open a water storage container. Vindictive stupid idiot.

By the way, Mola Ram earlier told Indy that he intended to take over the world. Hahahahahhahahaha. I think the world could take on this threat.

Also, I remembered that the reason he built the mine was to look for more glowing stones. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack but anyway...

Indy and Co reach the end of the tracks but the mine cart's brakes are broken so Indy stops it with his feet, burning through the soles of his shoes. He then hops around in a HILARIOUS manner (hilarious if you are 9 years old and intellectually challenged), going "Water, water..."

He then looks up and sees LOTS OF WATER coming at him and screams "Water!"

Hahahahahahahha! Indy, you tool.

Then they go outside and run across a bridge and whoa! Mola Ram and his boys are on the other side. How did they get there faster than a speeding mine cart? I don't know... maybe they have super powers.

I think we all know how the bridge scene plays out after that. It wasn't a bad scene in itself actually, except Mola Ram has this stupid red paint over his bald spot that looks like someone cracked him over the skull with a hatchet. In short, he looks fucking ridiculous.

But what really kills the scene is how Indy does a magic chant at the end of it that makes the rocks get hot and causes Mola Ram to fall to his death.

I don't know where Indy learned that chant. Maybe he had a copy of the script in that bag he was carrying. Anyway...

He then returns to the poor village that is suddenly green and beautiful - and in only three days! And everything is happy and cutesy. YAY!


In Raiders of the Lost Ark we get an archaelogist going all over the world after an archaelogical find, using his archaelogical skills to find it. We have a strong heroine who has great chemistry with the hero and the best friend to have in a tight spot, in Sallah. And then we have an interesting charming villain in Belloq. And lots of good fun and adventure along the way, culminating in the truck chase (that was NEVER topped).

And what do we get in this piece of shit, lame excuse of a film? A dumbed down Indy going after some rocks that are not an archaelogical find because everyone associated with them is still very much alive. He has an annoying whiny idiot heroine with whom he has no chemistry and a little kid who he doesn't need either... and who he irresponsibly brings into a dangerous situation. The villain has no charm, and no brains either. The story almost entirely takes place in that underground lair of polyester, red lights and disco smoke. The escapades are all stupid and dumbed down for very young children, while a lot of other stuff in the film is repugnant and gratuitous and inappropriate for the children this movie is for.

Too dumb for adults, too disgustingly violent for children and too stupid for words, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is one of the worst movies ever made.

Ah That felt good.

[Despondent]

Nice report. a public service, actually. After reading that I was reminded of the good part ("water..") as well as the rest and have no desire to ever see that film again.

the opening credits were out of place following up on Raiders. Didn't some silliness occur, like the name of the movie or something emit from Capshaw's mouth as she sang?

also, wasn't some casting integrity thrown out with her given the role? wasn't she tied to Spielberg or something? I can't remember, and sincerely don't want to at this point.

[Chefelf]

Holy crap. That's a lot of words.

Yeah. TOD is just not in the same league with the other two movies.

[Just your average movie goer]

Yeah, it is a lot of words, I guess. The scary part was I was going fairly easy on it.

But I've just never seen anyone really rake this movie over the coals - and it really deserves it.

When I was a kid, my parents didn't let me watch this movie and it was only recently that I saw it... out of morbid curiosity, I suppose.

Now I wish I had listened to their advice.

[Chefelf]

I kinda liked it as a kid. It wasn't until I got a little older that I realized it was dumb.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Let me clear the air by saying this, I agree with everyone on 99% of th emovies roasted here in these forums. But I will ALWAYS defend two movies on these forums... ROTJ and The Temple of Doom

My defense of TOD

To begin with I agree with both of you that TOD is way different from the other two Indiana Jones movies. That being said I consider TOD the best of the Indiana Jones movies and currently copied it my hard drive about a week ago. So I have viewed it recently.

A couple of points:

1. TOD is not a plot driven movie. Raiders and Crusade were primarily driven by the "lost artifact plots" that were inriguing and in some ways frightening to a degree. TOD is a complete action movie. The "Shakara stone" plot is mostly avehicle to move the plot and connect the scenes together. So TOD is radically different from the other two movies.

2. TOD is a movie appreciated for it's scenes rather than the movie as a total. There is not a person alive who when drunk won't re-inact the Kali-Ma take your heart out seen. {c'mon Elf. You know the words, "KALI-MAAAA".. Ja ta day!" There are several scenes that are either great action scenes, humorous scenes or intriguing culrural scenes that everyone remembers. From the monkey heads, to the beauty of Pankot palace, to the "bridge scene" to the spectacular opening show piece. Everyone remembers these scenes fondly even though they don't know why any off these scenes occured in relation to the plot. It's funny most of the people who love TOD cannot even remember the Thuggee cult plot or the "legend of Shankara plotline" but they do remember - "You can fly?" No. Do you?"scene.

3. A lot of TODs plot intrigue is lost in the transfer from screenplay to movie. Cut from the movie was the "bad dream" scene when Indy drinks the blood of Kali. In the dream sequence there was supposed to be a very graphic scene where in the dream Indy sees Willie turn into a serpent. This serpent pierces Indy's heart and then Indy wakes up with that Sinister laugh. Read the novel when you get a chance. It would have been a spectacular scene.

4. One of the interesting things with the "Indiana Jones" character is that in order for Indy to be effective he needs to have a sidekick. Really. In Raiders, he had Karen and Sallah to enhance him, in Crusade it was his dad. The sidekicks allow Indy's characteristics to be enhanced and it allows a peek into Indy's character through his interactions with his sidekicks.

1. With Karen, you got a glimpse into Indy's love life and the fact that he took advantage of young girl. It also showed that Indy could be overcome with guilt and morose when he feels responsible for Karen's "death".

2. In Crusade, you have two sidekicks in Willie and Short Round, a young boy and a materialistic singer. They are both people that are novices for the most part to Indy's world. Indy's skills especially his archeological knowledge is enhanced when he has the novices next to him. Essentially the do the job that sidekicks do so well, make the hero look better. If Willie was in anyway effective or knowledgeable, she would hamper Indiana Jones heroics as a character which is vital to TOD's success. That's why Willie has to be......well Willie. It's the "Watson-Sherlock Holmes" concept of foils. Short Round is intriguing in that one he is more knowledgable about Indy's world and is way more effective than Willie. It is Short Rounds age that allows him to be placed in Willie's world and make him a perfect sidekick for Indy.{ Hell he was way more effective than the, "Throw me the idol " guy in Raiders } Any person older than Short Rounds age would, one be problematic if Short Round was still Asian {slave-man servant}, two would hamper on Indy's heroics, three would be a potential romantic rival to Indy. So Indy's sidekicks are VITALY important to the dynamic of the movie. Plus, admittedly it makes the film more family orirented.

5. Off all the Indiana Jones movies,TOD represents the IDEALof the modernized serial movies. It is a modernized version of the "jungle adventurer" serials of the 40s. A lot of those serials had amazing racist and narrow minded views of the Africa, the Far East and Asia. Y'know with the "ooga booga'", headhunters, jungle goddesses, voodoo and manservents. TOD is very much one of those adventurer films from the 40s but has really shown the elements of modern thinking applied to that genre. Examples

1. Once they finish the raft scene, where the Shaman arrives, Indy gives the apporpriate Shamanese welcome with his hands. It shows that Indy is a true archeologist and it is true to the culture of the Hinduism.

2. The bug eating scene with Willie. In most of those 40s serials there is a notion that Far East people are savages and as an example eating bugs is part of savagery. When Willie refuses to eat thebugs, Indy explains that that is more food than thos e people eat in a week, there starving. He also says that Willie is insulting them and embarassing me. I love this scene not for just the humor, but the fact that it shows respect for these cultures and puts it into perspective the different culture. The interaction of Indy with the Indian actors is very good. It is done with respect and is a far cry from those patronizing and racist serials.


I will let these points sit with you guys for a while. I will post more later.

[Just your average movie goer]

I was wondering how long it would take you to show up, Mike. Welcome to the first Grill a Movie post.

While I have a lot of admiration for your courage in attempting to defend this sorry excuse of a movie, surely you must know that you are fighting for a lost cause.

I would like to respond to the points you raised... some were actually good but I will get to them later.

First of all, saying that you like this movie better than the other two Indiana Jones movies instantly destroys your credibility as a film critic. But I as I am a merciful man, I will let it slide in order to address your full list of points.

TOD is not a plot driven movie.

No argument here. However, even considered as an action movie, it does not hold its ground. After the initial stupidity with our trio falling out of a plane in a rubber boat, there is not much action at all. They go to the temple, get out of a trap, see a slow human sacrifice scene that seems very self-indulgent (sick minds, I tell you) and then there's the torture scenes. Torture is not action. It is not entertaining. It is not even supposed to be entertaining. Do you know why? Because it's freakin' torture for fuck's sake!

We finally get action at the end of the film when they escape and free the slaves. And this action is too much like slapstick comedy. In Raiders, the action was very comic-book style but it was still convincing. For the most part, this action is not.

And the mine-cart chase? Hahahahahahahaha. Did you know that this was just a left-over gag from the planning stages of Raiders of the Lost Ark? And I think I know why it didn't make it into the film. Because it was lame!

I think Spielberg and Lucas were continually trying to out-do the truck scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Like they so often do, they failed miserably.

So Temple of Doom as an action film? HEH!

2. TOD is a movie appreciated for it's scenes rather than the movie as a total.

I agree with this too (although apart from the bridge scene, I have no idea what you could be referring to). But having a few good scenes doesn't make a movie. I can find snippets of entertainment in many films, but these do not make the movie alone. Apart from Mola Ram's bad acting and painted-red bald spot, and that crap with Indy doing that magic chant, I actually thought the bridge scene was not too bad. However, that does not make The Temple of Doom into a good movie.

There is not a person alive who when drunk won't re-inact the Kali-Ma take your heart out seen.

I do not know a single person who does this.

3. A lot of TODs plot intrigue is lost in the transfer from screenplay to movie.

Okay, so maybe the screenplay is good. But I'm not talking about the screenplay. At the end of the day, movies have to stand up to the critics alone. Behind the scenes stories, budget cuts and difficult editing decisions can be used to explain why some movies are bad. But they cannot be used to argue that a bad movie is good.

4. One of the interesting things with the "Indiana Jones" character is that in order for Indy to be effective he needs to have a sidekick.

I disagree. Indy does not have sidekicks. He has friends and contacts. Calling people like Marian or Sallah a sidekick is demeaning - both to Indy and to them. Also, as I said in my grilling, Indy had no business bringing a kid into that kind of situation. That's really irresponsible and is damaging to Indy's character.

That said, I thought Short Round did a good job - especially as he is a child actor and most child actors are annoying. However, it was too unbelievable, having him taking down thuggees with his martial arts skills. I do not doubt the kid's fighting prowess... it's just a simple matter of weight ratio. A kid weighing thirty kilograms could not knock over an adult weighing ninety-five.

5. Off all the Indiana Jones movies,TOD represents the IDEALof the modernized serial movies. It is a modernized version of the "jungle adventurer" serials of the 40s. A lot of those serials had amazing racist and narrow minded views of the Africa, the Far East and Asia. Y'know with the "ooga booga'", headhunters, jungle goddesses, voodoo and manservents. TOD is very much one of those adventurer films from the 40s but has really shown the elements of modern thinking applied to that genre.

Okay, this is interesting. You gave two examples there - about how Indiana Jones showed his respect to the Indian Shaman and his culture and how he asked Willie to do the same. I agree wholeheartedly with those examples. And I am being completely honest here - I actually liked the scene where Indiana Jones chided Willie by saying "You're offending them and you're embarrassing me.".

That was good.

However, once they reach Pankrot Palace, the whole movie from that point on is filled with ''ooga booga" crap. What the hell do you think that Kali cult is? At any point during the film, did you think that this represented an Indian culture? That was Hollywood stereotypical "evil savages" at its worse.

The stupid voodoo plot in that crappy Bond film Live and Let Die looks good in comparison to this!

And that's one of the reasons why Mola Ram is such a stupid villian. It's because instead of being a character, Mola Ram is simply a big bad "ooga booga" stereotype - with a stupid plastic bull horn head-dress to match.

Weak, Mike, weak.

But having said that, I still admire your courage. I understand that it is very difficult to defend really shitty movies and you are very brave for trying.

[civilian_number_two]

1. TOD is not a plot driven movie.

Of course it is, Mike. TOD is ***ALL*** "plot." What is has none of is "story."

These are different things, which I am sure you are learning in film school. It is ok not to have plot (TOD has plot) but it is lamentable not to have story (TOD has no story).

2. TOD is a movie appreciated for it's scenes rather than the movie as a total.

The scenes you then go on to quote are pretty trivial rip-offs of serials Lucas and Spielberg would have seen in repertory movie theatres in the 50s. The bridge scene is a direct quote, right down to the hacking and the falling and the hanging on, from a serial that replayed on tv the year after TOD came out. The mine cart scene too. Damn me but I can't remember what it was called. Anyway, I guarantee you Lucas and Spielberg remembered it. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with ripping stuff off if you do it well or with a personal touch (thank you Quentin Tarantino, for two fine films), but if you do it just because you have no ideas of your own, then for shame. The opening is an MGM gala from the fifties grafted unsuccessfully with YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. The heart-rip-out scene is racist and stupid, and jyamg's LIVE AND LET DIE analogy is apt. The "who can fly this plane" bit may have come right out of a ROAD film.

I have a question about MY favorite scene: why did they rip out a living man's heart and then lower him into lava while he was still inexplicably conscious and screaming? So we'd know they were evil! Oh here's another one: why did they do the same thing to Kate Capshaw, only they forgot to rip out her heart? So Indy could save her, of course!

Unbelievable.

TOD is appreciated for its scenes rather that as a whole, and on the whole its scenes are stupid and trivial and shit. That's why everyone appreciates that TOD is a shitty movie.

3. A lot of TODs plot intrigue is lost in the transfer from screenplay to movie.

The only good part of the awful awful "Bleeding Gums Murphy" episode of THE SIMPSONS was this exchange between Lisa and a fellow jazz bar patron.

Lisa: You have to listen to the notes he's not playing!

Critic: I could have done that at home!

The best parts of the film didn't make the cut? Too fucking bad; make the parts you keep any good, and I'll figure I didn't just throw away five bucks.

And another thing: the scene you mention sucks. Dream sequences in just about any movie are a lame ripoff. Oh no, danger! Oh wait - it was just a really vivid dream. What a crock. Who else was really worked up when they thought Ripley was about to die right at the beginning of ALIENS! If you were then you're an idiot. She was standing in the poster carrying a flame thrower in front of a bunch of characters we haven't even met yet! That's why ALIEN is a better film than ALIENS - no stupid fucking dream sequence. Show me a movie with a good dream sequence and you're probably showing me ROSEMARY'S BABY; my advice after that one is: if it's not played for comedy, or - like in RB - incredibly relevant, then cut it.

4. One of the interesting things with the "Indiana Jones" character is that in order for Indy to be effective he needs to have a sidekick.

I have no problem with this as an idea. I disagree that the sidekick had to come to us direct from JOHNNY QUEST. And of course, for the most part, Marion and Sallah were in the scenes they needed to be in, and did not fit typical "sidekick" roles. Hell, Sallah's barely in the movie at all, and Marion is pretty much the "damsel in distress," an entirely different and admittedly cliched role all its own. So yes, I think Indy could do with a sidekick: I like the way you think. But in RAIDERS he didn't have one. Maybe he did have one in CRUSADE; I don't know.

5. Off all the Indiana Jones movies,TOD represents the IDEALof the modernized serial movies. It is a modernized version of the "jungle adventurer" serials of the 40s. A lot of those serials had amazing racist and narrow minded views of the Africa, the Far East and Asia. Y'know with the "ooga booga'", headhunters, jungle goddesses, voodoo and manservents.

I didn't read this: Indy is modern and not racist because he knows that it would insult the weak-minded foreign man if he refused to eat his traditional dish of bugs and monkey brains? How modern, the notion that foreigners are so religiously fixated on their own culture that they would collapse if the American did not condescend to accept them! Wasn't this the notion behind every noble savage film ever made in the period you lament? Wasn't this pretty much the most annoying aspect of THE KING AND I?

A notion that nearly brings a tear to my eye, it's so funny, is that you find the sterotype of the jungle goddess to be typical of the racist booga booga stuff. You know, where the blond girl is captured by the primitives and worshipped, and the heroes benefit after initial fear of death. Because isn't this something we see in the worst of the STAR WARS films, with the Ewoks and C3P0?

Also - get this - the Thuggee cult is the only thing Lucas and Spielberg apparently knew about India, whose soldiers fought bravely alongside the British (albeit in segregated regiments) using modern weapons, no less, in WWII. The Cult of Kali were a curiosity of the Victorian era.


I agree with jyamg that it is brave to defend a stupid and unexciting film. Kudos.

[Just your average movie goer]

Welcome back, Civilian. I thought you'd probably have a look at this one sooner or later. I just finished reading your post and once again, it was excellent.

[Just your average movie goer]

Wait a moment - I realised I hadn't replied to all your points, Mike. There's one more in there I forgot to mention. Sorry, mate. There's no way I can let this particular sentence slide.

About having Short Round in the movie, you actually said the following:

Plus, admittedly it makes the film more family orirented.

Family oriented? With all respect, you must be joking, right?

Child-slavery, torture and the gruesome murder of an innocent man during a long drawn out human sacrifice ritual does not make for a good family movie.

Saying something about it being more family oriented really makes your argument blow up in your face. "This argument will self-destruct in five seconds..."

Okay. That's everything, I think. But do post your other points at some stage. I'm more than happy to read your other reasons for liking this movie.

I just don't think this is the kind of movie someone can defend. Spielberg himself has pretty much abandoned it and seems quite uncomfortable talking about it. Even a highly-experienced debater would have a lot of trouble defending this.

I'm not saying it's the worst movie ever made (I think that title probably belongs to Con Air) but it's definitely down there.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Nearly all the critical points made on TOD are more a matter of personal taste.

To be honest this forum was the first example I have EVER heard of this move being bashed this sensely


There are nearly about qa 1,000 movies that have several of the elements that you bash readily in TOD and you would find acceptable or flat out ignore. My point was made clearly when i stated some of the flaws in SW A New Hope in a previous post.

These are different things, which I am sure you are learning in film school. It is ok not to have plot (TOD has plot) but it is lamentable not to have story (TOD has no story).

I never said TOD did not have a plot. I said the plot regarding the "Shankara Stones" is not essential to the story. Indiana could be looking for lost moon rocks of Io in Timbuktu and it wouldn't have changed the scenes or the characterizations. That was what i was getting at. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the search for the Ark is integral to the movie. There is a story in TOD BTW.

yet do you consider TOD an inept piece of filmmaking or a movie that you just don't like. All of the reasons Chef Elf gives for hating Episodes I & II are pretty clear cut and universally ascceptable flaws. All the points you guys have given me for hating TOD are really matters of taste rather than of flaws in the process.
You either find the mine car chase exciting or you don't. You either appreciate th ehumor eleemnts or you don't. My opinion of TOD is not unique among movie criticsm here. There are more than a handful of critics that consider TOD a wonderful movie. Some of them even work for the New York Times and other well respected institutions. I don't think I am commiting an act of blasphemy here by saying that TOD is good movie. If I said Gigli or ATOC was good then you guys could committ me to an insane assylum.


It requires no act of bravery to defend one's opininon. The whole creative process is based on one seeing the brilliance in what another sees as failure. The strength of the art of film lies in it's diversity of viewpoints. One artists can see cubism another artist can see realism. The end result is two unique types of views.

[Vwing]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with ripping stuff off if you do it well or with a personal touch (thank you Quentin Tarantino, for two fine films)

May I ask, which films are you talking about? I'm assuming the 2 Kill Bill movies, but I would like to make sure.

[Despondent]

SO, TOD was acceptable?

this guy from the smithsonian institution was interviewed on a local radio show in 1990. he was talking about how great it was to receive Indy's fedora. Then he amended himself, and said had he seen Last Crusade before requesting the hat, he might have changed his mind.

I'm just sayin'.

[civilian_number_two]

Nearly all the critical points made on TOD are more a matter of personal taste.

All of your positive points, you have to admit, are based on personal taste as well.

Your comment that loads of published critics liked the movie is calle the "Appeal to Authority." O don't give a shit if these guys like bad movies. All tey have is a job I wouldn't want; I am a lot smarter than all of them, to tell the truth.

Do I think TOD is "inept?" No. It pulled off a very specific thing, in that it borrowed liberally from its sources to recreate the fun and the excitement of all the kid-friendly serials of the silver age of film. It then added enough gore and misery and frankly embarrassing sexual innuendo to pretty much make it a bewildering mess.

All of the "You like x or you don't" stuff is goofy. Of course that's the case. Wouldn't you say the same with anything? "Either you like CHINATOWN or you don't, so I say it's just a matter of personal taste." Frankly there's no such thing as an intrinsically good movie. But with sequels (or prequels, grr) you have very specific guidelines. Indy in TOD was a completely different character from Indy in RAIDERS, chasing women and wealth and fame in the compny of a goofy sidekick. He's a far cry from the Indy of RAIDERS, and frankly has more in common with James Bond than Alan Quartermain. The world he inhabits is rather differnt as well: kudos to S&L for talking the action somewhere new, but boo for transporting it back in time to the days of the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels. Even Rudyard Kiling never portrayed Indians as one-dimensionally as they were in TOD, but then I guess Kipling never wrote booga booga jungle goddess adventures.

I don't think TOD is "inept." Sure, it's a competently made bad film. Every scene in it is played for comedy, and none of the jokes are funny. It is steeped in dumb violence with no consequence. The absolute worst aspect of the film is making a big deal about how Indian people somehow have the ability to rip people's hearts out while they're still alive (with their bare hands, no less), but when they execute the same process on white people, they forget to perform that step. You want to talk about racism? Everything about ripping that guy's heart out is racist, and steeped in Imperialist Bristish fantasies about what the Thuggee did when the soldiers weren't rounding them up all white-man's-burden-like. And every booga booga film and serial of the 40s had a scene where all the good guys were going to be ritually killed (and/or eaten), but the evil murderous tribe would kill the coolies off first, with special fates reserved for the white folk. Of course, Tarzan would show up and save the white folk in the nick of time. Sorry, coolies.

TOD is embarrassing of you went into the theatre to watch an Indiana Jones movie. It is perfectly average fare, if a bit dumb, if you went in to watch an ultra-violent homage to the serials of the 40s. Which is what S&L were hoping you had done; it's what they thought you liked about RAIDERS; it apparently has some fans, for probably that exact reason. It can't be compared with the other films in the series, but just like the James Bond films, it doesn't have to be. There is no continuity between the films, so "anything goes" (thanks for the warning right off the bat, guys). I think its a terrible movie, up there with LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, but as bad as those films were, they never took away from GOLDFINGER. I woould have preferred more story, even at the cost of action, and I would have liked action scenes that allowed me to supend my disbelief. Indy did some ridiculous stuff in RAIDERS, but he never outran rushing water or raced around on a minecart that was built like an E-ticket ride at Disneyland. He also never played out that dullest of all movie cliches, the bit where the hero loses his mind and act like a villain. Yawn; I got bored of that thirty years ago, along with everyone else on the planet Earth. they used that one in episodes of Scooby Doo, so I wouldn't have put it in an Indiana Jones movie. But maybe that's just me.

So there.

[Jordan]

Every Jones movies sucked shit. Most the bond's did too.

The best bonds are the early ones. I even liked the one with George Lazenby (on her majesties secret service). He played a better bond than Moore and Dalton.

The new bonds, save Golden eye, have all sucked a big fat cock. Bond always had violence and action, but the new movies beat it over your head till you reach the point that you want to see some dialogue, or even a love scene.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 06 May 2004 - 09:47 PM