Temple of Doom: Bang a gong, sing a song

Thanks, Jim. This is great stuff.

I still think Raiders is the best, but without a doubt Temple of Doom is vastly superior to the utterly vanilla, utterly generic Last Crusade, a sad, almost pathetic parody of Raiders by a group of filmmakers who clearly had no new ideas. Seeing Sallah emasculated and turned into pure comic relief was painful to watch. Ditto for Brody, who is played entirely as a doddering twit. The series was already tongue-in-cheek to start with - putting your tongue in your cheek that's already for a tongue in its cheek, well, hell, that's two tongues and that's not right.

Capshaw certainly pales next to Karen Allen, but Temple has just as many thrilling action scenes as Raiders, and I love Short Round.

Thank you! Temple of Doom is so often overlooked and considered the weakest in the series. It's my favorite, though. It was the most authentic, it had that crazy mine cart chase, it had the heart ripping, lava dipping scene that gave me nightmares as a kid and which still gives me chills. Raiders is always going to be the popular favorite, but, as someone intermediately familiar with the old school serials and everything, I think Temple is maybe the best adventure film ever made.

It's funny: I was just telling a friend yesterday that I didn't like Temple of Doom at all until I saw Gunga Din. Once I understood the tradition Spielberg and Lucas were tapping, The film came together for me. I remember re-watching it and having an actual "Ohhhhh, now I get it!" moment.

For me, one of the interesting aspects of the Indiana Jones films is that you, as a viewer, need to reset you expectations with each movie, since they all use different genres as their inspiration: each film is its own separate exercise in pastiche. If you're only reference for a film like ToD is Raiders of the Lost Ark, I can understand why the film might fall apart almost immediately (and that could still be chalked up to a failing of the film, since audience audience expectations for sequel are valid concerns).

I have to say that despite whatever faults Kingdom of the CrystaI Skull may have, I was happy that it stuck to its guns and unabashedly embraced its 1950s B-movie roots.

So true, Jim. I mean, I know why people believe Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best of the series, but from that opening shot and song, I knew without a doubt that Temple of Doom was the one that would meet its ambitions the best (if that makes sense).

Easily my favorite of the series. "Intoxicating" is a great word to describe the feel of the film.

This surprises me, although I loved the film when I saw it in 1984 (I was 15 and skipped school to see a Friday matinee on a HUGE downtown screen that has been closed for many years now), I can barely stand "Temple of Doom" now. I think there are three things I really don't like about it.

First of all, I think it has a fairly dumbed-down story. Whereas "Raiders of the Lost Ark" had a complex story, in the sense that the plot has many different stages and settings, "Temple of Doom" is quite simple. Simple to the point of being too dumb for me.

Second, Kate Capshaw and little Short-Round are nails-on-the chalkboard loud and shrieking for the whole picture.

Third, it just feels a bit too pandering to me. You liked the spiders and snakes in the first one? We'll give you thousands of bugs, and dishes that ooze snakes all over the table. Meh.

Jim, talk about contrariness! Only you would ecstatically state that the second Indiana Jones is your favorite. I hear over and over (I just hosted an IJ marathon) that "#2 is just okay".

I have had several discussions online with fellow bloggers about the Indy movies recently due to the new installment. Many of them like Temple of Doom the best. And I understand their points and yours concerning it's devotion to the serial adventure, it's cinematic intoxication.

But at what point do we stop allowing attention to cinematic historical detail to fool us into thinking we're watching a good movie. Simply because a movie is in command of its homages does not mean it is a good movie, or even as good as those it pays homage to.

Now I don't hate Temple of Doom like so many, but it's not a favorite either and reading your (admittedly abbreviated) analysis above I find that the supporters of Temple of Doom keep bringing up the same thing over and over. That is, its cinematic intoxication, its devotion to pulp, its love of Hollywood history. I'm beginning to believe if I were to make a movie tomorrow that was nothing more than a series of visual and aural homages strung together for two hours the Temple of Doom supporters would hail it as a masterpiece.

Homage is not everything. Character and story count for something as well. The characters of Willie and Short-Round have also been supported as of late in online discussions but I can work up no love for them. I find Willie shrill and Short-Round to be of the clever plucky Full House variety of kid so popular in the eighties. Are they both homages to other characters from pulp serials in the thirties (the fish out of water high maintenance lady and the little rascal of a scamp kid)? Sure. Of course they are. But how does that make them good? It doesn't. Only the screenwriting can make them good and the actors who portray them and on those two fronts we were failed miserably.

I remember reading Pauline Kael's rapturous review of Temple of Doom in 1984 in the face of so many negative reviews. I saw the movie with the intent of taking the cinephiliac high road, of loving it and pointing to Kael's review if anyone disagreed (those poor uneducated souls who just wouldn't 'get it'). But once I saw it I knew I had to be honest with my own reaction. I didn't like it and felt Kael was letting the fetishism of homage cloud her judgment of the film. I said then (I swear I did) that film buffs (I wasn't calling them cinephiles yet) for years would fool themselves into thinking Temple of Doom was good because of Kael's review. They wouldn't, being film bufs, see past the homage.

Of course, most cinephiles now are not even aware of that review so they are obviously liking it on their own terms and I'm not calling anyone out with the preceding statement. It's just that I think many of us cinephiles have a fetishistic devotion to film history (I know I do) and sometimes let movies filled with such fetishism override the questions of quality within the film itself.

One statement I hear often (and believe myself) is that a movie should work on its own terms. That is, if based on book it should not be necessary to read the book to appreciate the movie. If based on a song, a comic book, a tv show or a series of varied films (like an Airplane parody for instance) the movie should work whether one has knowledge of its source material or not. Strip away the advance knowledge of the source material for Doom, the wink wink nudge nudge 'I know what Spielberg's referencing here' and I don't think you're left with much.

I think Temple of Doom is fine, a passable adventure. If I could replace Willie and Short-Round with more likable lady / kid parts I would but since I can't I have to accept them as part of the package. I also agree that the plot itself (as well as the title) hearkened back to the serial adventures of old better than the first and vastly better than the third. But that doesn't make it a good movie in my book and certainly doesn't make it the best of the series.

Man, I'm glad someone enjoyed Temple of Doom as much as I did. This was the first Indiana Jones movie I saw, then Last Crusade in the theatre when I was eight, and I didn't get around to seeing Raiders until years later. Last Crusade is probably my favorite (for the tank scene alone, not to mention the blimp, the airplanes, and the boat chase) - and Temple my second. Then Raiders. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which I saw last night, was almost terrible.

I don't understand why there's so much hate for Temple of Doom, though. The setpieces were great (esp. the rope bridge), the Mola Ram heart-ripping scene is terrifying, and being a kid I always envied Short Round for getting to go on this crazy adventure with "Dr. Jones!!" essentially playing kid brother to the man.

Speaking of Mola Ram, have you ever seen the 1987 Bollywood film Mr. India? It shares a somewhat similar spirit to the Indiana Jones movies, and Amrish Puri is even more over the top as the villain Mogambo than he was in Temple of Doom. I always urge people to put it on their Netflix queue.

I don't get the vehement dislike (hatred is too strong, since most people don't hate it) toward TEMPLE OF DOOM. I think it's by far the most interesting one of the series, particularly because of the way it specifically harkens back to older "thrill rides" of the 30s.

Getting into specifics, that mine cart chase is thrilling today because of its old-fashioned feel (Oh my! You mean they used back-screen projection?!?!? Silly-looking! Why couldn't they just use CG on it? It looks so terrible now!*) I really must not get what they were doing.

However, not having seen the latest installment yet, I must say that of all the reviews I've read, Roger's is probably the best. The fact that so many reviews mention how certain things don't "belong" in Indiana Jones films seems a bit silly, because OBVIOUSLY any sci-fi/pulp elements come from the prominence of 50s culture itself, just like the adventure/exotica of the original three films come straight out of cinematic tropes of the 30s. It just seems smart to take that into consideration and not expect yet ANOTHER Jones film set in the same place and time with the same characters...

*note my sarcasm, please.

Thank you as well for going to bat for "Temple of Doom," which has always been my favorite of the series, an opinion seemingly shared by no one except my mother. Perhaps it's my favorite because I've had to defend it so much to people who consider it the worst of the series. I've noticed that most people seem to dislike it (or even hate it) for the same reason that I love it: it's just so different from the other movies. Well why the hell shouldn't it be? My biggest problem with "Last Crusade" is that it marches over the same terrain as "Raiders" and suffers by comparison. "Last Crusade" has always been on the bottom rung of Indy movies, and having just seen "Crystal Skull" last night, that hasn't changed.

I love the defense of Temple of Doom, the most unjustly shat upon film of the series. I think many people simply weren't prepeared for an experience so overwhelmingly cinematic and instead focus on the literary elements of the film that they perceive to be flawed. Raiders is still my favorite, but Temple of Doom is one of the most exciting films Spielberg ever made. Bravo, as always!

Great post, however I personally thought the pinnacle of the Indy movies came in the first film. I found the second and third to be very good, but lacking the originality/excitement that came with the first.

Nice. Most people I've spoken to think Temple of Doom is the worst of the original Indy's. It's refreshing to hear a well-informed counter-view.

Ugh, blasphemy...

I didn't even like Temple of Doom when I was ten. And I was HUGE into Raiders and to some extent Last Crusade.

There are several movies that are regarded by my generation with a fervent and hopelessly nostalgic devotion, but that I completely could not connect with or enjoy though I may have wished to at the time very much.

The top of that list is Goonies. Number two is Temple of Doom.

I should probably revisit it now with a different set of eyes, but Kate Capshaw was just so dreadfully annoying. I don't know if I can hang.

I think which Indy (ha!) film you like may depend on how old you were when you first saw it. I was 9 when Last Crusade came out, and I loved it. It was expansive, roamed the world from Venice to Berlin to Alexandretta, had puzzles, ancient lore by the truckload, and the fate of the world at stake.
Temple of Doom took place in a claustrophobic mine, was dark and confusing, and had such small stakes (a villages children? or something?) that it failed to resonate with me. As an adult, I can see where other views of the film come from, but as a kid I was not entertained.

Hey it looks like I was the only one who didn't agree with you on Temple of Doom. Can I get some kind of coupon or something for being the weirdo odd man out? This was all a test right? Did I pass?

JE: But, Jonathan, you are in the vast majority -- with the horrified hordes who were shocked, shocked by the film back in 1984! (I was 25 when it came out that summer...)

Jonathan: Certainly you are correct, that references do not a movie make. What I was trying to show was how the film puts its world, its attitudes, its tone in context at the very beginning. If you look back at Kael's review of De Palma's "The Fury," that may give you a sense of how I enjoyed "Temple of Doom." The main character in the movie, the whose company I enjoy the most and with whom I identify, is not Indy or Willie or even Short Round. It's Spielberg, and he's having a blast -- at his loosest and most intense in this Indy picture.

Jonathan, you are in the vast majority

True - but I hope that unlike the vast majority my reasons are more founded on sincere reflection and not, "Oh man that movie blew! It totally sucked!"

I completely see what you and others like about it and much of it I like too. But my objections to it stand. And I just can't get past it - I hate Short-Round.

Jim-

Finally! Someone else loves this movie as much as I do. I was born in '84 and watched TEMPLE OF DOOM almost on a daily basis between ages 4-10.

Great post.

I have not seen The Crystal Skull. Although I will probably see it in a few weeks, I am not real excited or interested in seeing it. The whole idea seems kind of boring. There does not seem to be any real excitement surrounding the film, certainly not the amount of excitement that Raiders or Return of the Jedi generated.

Even though Temple of Doom has its flaws (it is needlessly gross and there is not much plot), I think it is an exciting action film. It is certainly one of the most intense, enjoyable, and inventive action films I have ever seen. Spielberg and Lucas had great ideas as far as action. Temple of Doom is not the problem.

The problem is Last Crusade. It is too light, silly, and goofy for an Indiana Jones movie. Sallah and Brody are clowns, and Connery gives the silliest performance of his career. It copies way too much from Raiders and other action movies (of course one will have to decide whether they prefer Harrison Ford or Roger Moore in a Venice boat chase). I liked the opening with River Phoenix because it is original, but the rest of the film feels tired and is dull.

Raiders is not only the best of the Indiana Jones pictures, but it's the greatest action film ever made. The story is fascinating and thoughtful, the characters are interesting, and the action is incredible.

Although I completely disagree with Jim's view of "Raiders," I found this post very insightful and enjoyable.

And give Kate Capshaw a break. She had to learn to sing "Anything Goes" in Chinese, and that song isn't easy in English. Also, she basically was following the direction she was given, which was be the exact opposite of Karen Allen. It cost her an acting career but gained her a billionaire husband. Life is full of trade-offs.

I hated Doom when I originally saw it in theaters. Too dark, too gross, too much Kate Capshaw. I wanted another Raiders, but I got something else.

I stayed away from the movie for 20 years until catching it a second time on DVD. I don't know if it was lowered expectations or I'd just grown up or I'd experienced more movies, but Doom has aged far better than Last Crusade, a movie I liked at the time, but less and less as time goes by.

Thanks for the terrific write-up, Jim.

If anything, the pagan occult mythology is far more suited to the purposes of what the origins of this character were. The Judeo-Christian mythology of "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" almost make those films seem safe by comparison with the foreign, exotic supernatural forces at work in "Temple of Doom." Heart-ripping human sacrifices will always be more terrifying to me than drinking water out of the wrong Grail chalice. There is more fright and horror in the underground Thuggee ceremonies than there is in the entireties of "Raiders" or "Last Crusade," with exception of the gory finale of "Raiders of the Lost Ark." "Temple of Doom" goes into the heart of darkness while the bookends remain timidly within the realms of white-bread danger.

Interestingly enough, the Paramount-logo-dissolve/semi-opening-shot of Crystal Skull also teaches the viewer how to watch the movie: with a blatantly phony-looking CG prairie dog straight out of Jumanji. ("Folks, don't even try to bring your disbelief to this one -- this is the mildest computer-assisted what-the-hell moment you're going to see here.")

Also, I'd argue It's a Small World is just a tad more hallucinogenic than Mr. Toads Wild Ride (or is Small World only in Disney World?), but I appreciate the hilariously dead-on reference all the same.

Here's what I wrote on Temple Of Doom a little while back:

Now I see it, the difference. Where Raiders Of The Lost Ark was elegant, a mature homage and update of classic Saturday serials, told with wit and an eye for spectacle, awe, and myth, its sequel is merely that: a sequel, another breed altogether. It builds on what is suspected to have worked the last time around, and rather than a celebration of something beloved, it means to explode what came before. It wants you to forget the last go around, and does so mainly by turning up the volume.

Temple Of Doom is loud and graceless, a juvenile gross-out with little of the sense of history or cleverness of its predecessor. It seems to have been made by different people, except that it is again masterfully directed by Steven Spielberg, whose eye for composition is nearly matchless in all of cinema. It’s only that Spielberg lost himself in the whiz-bangery this time, and used character to serve the situation, rather than the other way around.

The most jarring insult is that the previously archetypal and revered Jones character is made to do things that go against the grain of what we know of him. He was an adult before, a man with a Peter Pan-like streak of mischievousness and cruelty, but in the cartoon world he’s made to inhabit this time, he comes off sometimes as a buffoon, or at least the straight man in a camp of buffoons, and it’s hard to believe he would tolerate that for as long as he does.

Symbolic of the movie’s failings is Kate Capshaw’s character Willie Scott, one of the most annoying and abrasive of all female performances and certainly not akin to Katherine Hepburn in The African Queen. Capshaw herself is not terrible—she’s a good sport—but the character is so two-dimensional and irritating, one can’t believe the cold Dr. Jones wouldn’t have just left her behind in Shanghai at the start of the movie, after convincingly (to the movie’s dumb villains, at least) threatening to kill her. Thankfully, this movie is a prequel to Raiders, and he has Karen Allen to look forward to.

Taken on its own terms, the movie is admittedly successful. It’s funny—I’m a fan of Short Round—and exciting, and moves quite breezily through all its set pieces. And one of those sequences, the heart-stopping mine car chase, is one of the greatest ever constructed. And there it is. That its ambitions rest lower than its predecessor's, and that it betrays its character a little, must be forgiven. It’s still Spielberg, after all.

ToD was gory but to call something this cartoony "dark" is ridiculous. Even as a kid I couldn't take any of it seriously, it kept breaking it's own reality. It's the Moonraker of the Indiana Jones films. Safely landing in that raft? The magical mine cart? Bah! It doesn't come close to Raiders.

My problem with The Temple of Doom centers on its treatment of "the darker races." As Jim notes, such treatment is prefaced - and, we can assume, justified - by more than a few sly winks at Old Hollywood otherness. I would argue that such references are superficial and limited, whether or not they go unnoticed. Spielberg exploits and reinforces Hollywood's racial representations without adequately addressing or questioning them.

Everyone loves an homage to old Hollywood. Ford knows, I do. But when I see films like Lord of the Rings, where the villains are dark, ride elephants and wear turbans; or King Kong, where the natives swing clubs and jiggle and a giant ape kidnaps a white lady; or Prince Caspian, where the invaders of Narnia are non-descript Mediterranean dark men with beards, I think - maybe a wink at old Hollywood wasn't enough. Maybe the majority of national and international audiences (for whom Indiana Jones is a ubiquitous American icon) react to dark men eating brains the way an audience seventy years ago reacted to something similarly foreign - by smirking in disbelief, accepting and shifting uncomfortably in their seats.

I am not totally convinced that Spielberg's gong reference (among many others) is anything more than a nod to a favorite style or era of film. That he is placing us in a particular Hollywood perspective does not mean that he is commenting on or curbing that perspective, at least not intentionally or for any reason beyond entertainment (which is often reason enough). He is, on the other hand, quite eagerly tapping into certain Hollywood racial standbys; acknowledging this outright, without comment or insight, does not excuse it. It has been over twenty years since The Temple of Doom premiered and Hollywood has shown no signs of halting the otherness that Spielberg "winked" at. Are all these subsequent films winking as well? Is there really for the majority of the American audience a difference between The Temple of Doom - a film that prefaces its savage natives with a referential gong-strike - and these other films that do not? Each reiteration of these stereotypes, especially from a cinematic (and cultural?) authority such as Spielberg, reinforces their supposed credibility, no matter how goofy the film.

What is the purpose then of such references? Spielberg seems to have nothing on his mind beyond the acknowledgment of his influences and the introduction of his own spin on them. That is fine if one is citing formal elements from Citizen Kane; certain instances, however, demand one act more responsibly, especially considering the size and diversity of the audience.

I'm glad to have some company on "Doom," Jim. My appreciation is here.

I think Temple of Doom works just fine on its own terms withoug the references. In fact I've never watched 1930s serials nor seen Gunga-Din so it's not like I could really appreciate those references anyway. I simply like Temple of Doom for the reasons Chris Zeidel mentioned. It's a viscerally exciting action movie.

I am going to see Crystal Skull tonight but only because my friends really want to see it. Again like Chris, I can't muster any enthusiasm for it. I just hope Indy 4 is a better belated sequel than Godfather 3.

Just to add to AG's comments, and in reference to Jonathan Lapper's, I think ToD works on its own terms. It does for me, at least.

When I first saw it, I knew next to nothing about the kinds of films it was homaging. Raiders was my only real frame of reference. And I loved it.

And these days, now that I know a bit more about film history, I still respond first and foremost to the film itself. The sorts of elements Jim discusses above are interesting, but if that's all there was, I wouldn't be so jazzed about the film, and little bits of it wouldn't have been replaying for years and years. (Bits like the expression on Indy's face when he's in the bug room and says "We are going to die.")

I used to always say ToD was my favorite of the three. These days, I'm not so sure. (I've wanted Crystal Skull to rise or, as it seems to have after seeing it, fall on its own merits before revisiting the earlier films.)

It doesn't have that kind of steady pull into the realm of the supernatural that Raiders had. (Before the climax, there could still be doubt as to whether or not the Ark could actually do anything. Not so in the later films.) And that's part of the reason why it's probably the best of the three films - that sense of the gradually enlarging scope of the possibilities of the film's world.

But I always thought that Temple was more fun, and had more of a sense of Indy being in over his head, which is when the character, and Ford, are at their best.

All of which is a long way of saying that, with Temple, I was never being fooled into thinking I was watching a good movie - I was just watching a good movie. Your mileage may vary, of course.

(And on the topic of greatest action film ever made, Raiders is great, but in English, at least, I'd still have to go with The Road Warrior.)

I had the opportunity to watch Temple of Doom on the big screen a few weekends back, and it was like viewing the film fresh. What a fantastic entertainment. Two important points struck me about the film:

1) The middle section is too long, as though Spielberg and Lucas really wanted to convince us that the Thuggees were evil incarnate. They probably could've tightened up all the portent, ritual, whipping, and sacrifice. As it is, the scenes push too hard against the broad comedy of the other sections.

2) The final forty minutes arguably contain the most relentless, exhilirating, and (this is key) hilarious series of action set-pieces in cinema history. From Indy rescuing Willie to Indy reaching the top of the bridge, it's a roller-coaster ride of pure awesome.

Thanks to all the commenters for helping me re-live not only Spielberg's "wink and a smile" juvenile gross-out fantasy, but also all the absurd controversy. What kid never sat around with their friends trying to think of the grossest thing to eat? The eyeballs floating up to the top of the tureen were priceless, and explains the entire intent of the movie in one shot.

The comedy, cleverness, and suspense of the opening "Anything Goes" sequence has never been matched, and at the time I really hoped Spielberg would make a full-length musical.

And to those of you who hate Short Round...how can you be so cold? The best lines in the whole movie are his, "No time for love, Dr. Jones!" and "Cover your heart!" This was the greatest cinematic bromance since Bogart and Rains.

While I believe RAIDERS is a perfect film, I also enjoy TEMPLE OF DOOM quite a bit - but for completely different reasons.

One of the previous posters beat me to the punch in the comment about the opening shot of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL.

*slight spoiler*
Spielberg gave me exactly what I wanted: the Paramount logo turning into a shape that would set up the film! I got chills. I was excited...

And then a CGI rodent pops out and practically grins at the audience. Wow.

I knew what I was in for. Oh, how I wanted to like this movie. I really did. I tried to convince myself that I was enjoying it as I watched it. But when all was said and done, I was just sad.

That opening shot truly defines the tone of the film.

Sure, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is a terrific action movie. It's constructed with such joy, and I've always felt like the darker elements only add to the fun. I'd love to say that "Temple of Doom" is as good as "Raiders", but I just can't. Kate Capshaw's parody of damsel in distress is such a horrific misfire. She's wonderful in the musical number, but once she stops singing and starts speaking, things just go downhill. She also receives considerably more screen time than any other female character in the Indy series, appearing in nearly every scene. She delivers a pretty staggering blow to an otherwise terrific film. Does anyone who claims that "Temple of Doom" is the best of the series actually like her? I've heard plenty of arguments about why "Temple of Doom" is the greatest film of the series, and almost all of them tend to forget about the fact that Willie Scott is in the film. Anyway, just curious.

Ahhh, here we go again, another person intiating a love-fest for Temple of Doom and Empire Strikes Back.

I'm sorry, but it's my opinion that both Indy and Star Wars are supposed to be campy-action, fun, and wild entertainment. Both of these movies, with the enslaved children, and with Luke's heritage probe too deep for me. I enjoyed both of these series (Indy and Star Wars) for the same reasons, they are escapist entertainment. I personally enjoyed Raiders and Return of the Jedi the most. Both were non-stop from start to finish.

Alright, I know what I'm watching this week: Temple of Doom. Clearly I need to see it again. I think I'll enjoy it more now but I still have bad feelings about Short-Round - I'll look for the bromance, promise.

I think the reason most people don't like "Doom" is because of the second act, beginning with Indy being force-fed the poison up to the point where he appears in the tunnel, ready to rescue the kids. On video, that's where I always hit the fast-forward button. I also dislike the "seduction" scene.

"Raiders" is still my favorite, especially with that wonderful adlibbed scene with the swordsman. (If you don't know the story, look it up on Snopes.com). Next is "Crusade," although I kept looking for the Monty Python troupe to show up once I realized it was about the Holy Grail.

*slight spoiler alert
I'd rate Skull a close third. Not to "Crusade," but rather to "Doom." I liked it, but not as much as I had hoped that I would. I found it a bit silly in spots. However, I would have liked to know more about the backstory hinted at by Indy that he and Mac were in the OSS during WWII.

I think the greatest single determiner for most people as to which of the Indy films they like best is the order in which they see them. As Ebert himself says, Raiders will go down as the greatest because it was first, but if any other Indy had been the first, it would be the one going down as the greatest. I always like Temple of Doom least of the three, but it was only recently that I realised that it was because it was the last of the three that I watched.

Kael had a habit of liking sequels better than the originals because she hated Superman but like Superman II and hated The Exorcist but liked The Exorcist II.So I think Jim Emerson should not read into the fact that although she liked Temple of Doom(she did not see it as a serious adventure but as a physical comedy)because he should keep in mind that it does not overlook the fact that she did not like Raiders.Although she hated Star Wars I'm curious if she ever lived to see The Empire Strikes Back

I apologize it was not Jim Emerson that was reading alot into what Pauline Kael said about Temple of Doom but its was actually Jonathan Lapper who actually felt Kael was wrong. So please forgive me for my mistake and Jonathan is right Temple of Doom isn't all that good and Kael had an ability to make cinematic mastery seem like trash and make cinematic junk seem like it came from the gods but Temple of Doom wasn't bad movie but it just wasn't as entertaining as Raiders or Last Crusade.

So everybody please forgive me,its just because I didn't look at this page properly so I wrote what I said without thinking.

Most Indians view 'The Temple of Doom' the same way as most blacks think of "The Birth of a Nation" or even "Gone With The Wind" . In other words a well made but a ( maybe unintentionally) racist film. This movie is still banned in India for the horrific way Indians were depicted in the movie. I do not agree with this ban but I do consider the movie's depiction of Indian's eating snakes and eyeballs as racist.

As much as I respect Ebert I do think he is being somewhat ignorant by calling Raiders the best in the series (even though I agree that Raiders is the best) because it was the first, it seems like he's not being fair to the other sequels and sometimes should realize that sequels often are more daring and take more chances than there originals.

Hey Jim,

Great post...I adore the beginning of Temple of Doom...especially the way we don't even see the title of the movie. It's shown behind Kate Capshaw, and she obscures it! Of course they take it for granted that we know the name of the movie that we've come to see anyway.

By the way, she's singing in Mandarin, and not Cantoneese. Mandarin is my second language, and I can tell you that she sings it very clearly.

Thanks for the post!

Vince

To Sam Erickson:

Sequels are almost never better or even more daring than the originals. A series is always fresh and new when it starts, which is one reason for why first films are almost always the best. A series will always get tiresome as it proceeds, so a part 3 or 4 will be boring even if it is decent.

Sequels are mostly rip-offs. They copy a great deal from their predecessors. So when we watch a sequel, we feel like we've seen it before.

Furthermore, filmmakers often do sequels just to make a quick buck. Since filmmakers do sequels primarily to expand their bank accounts, their hearts are not really in it. They quickly grow bored making the sequel. This is why sequels are often very boring and are not as daring or brave as their originals.

Sometimes it is necessary to make a sequel like Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, James Bond, or Godfather 2. Most sequels, however, were unnecessary.

Oh, and Pauline Kael died in 2002. To my knowledge, she liked Empire Strikes Back.

Sam - To answer your question, Pauline did review Empire Strikes Back and loved it, calling it the best of the series. Although she wasn't alone; many critics liked Empire and Superman II better than the originals.

Kael's aesthetic sense can be hard to work out, though her writing on the whole is excellent. She seemed to dislike pretention or anything that tried too hard, but then she was a huge De Palma fan.

EMPIRE actually got worse reviews than the first film at the time, though it's now considered the best in the series. Some critics were really thrown by how dark it was, and I think it caught some of the backlash over the whole STAR WARS phenomenon too.

I do believe "temple of Doom" is the most authentic action movie of all time. People often overlook the Bridge scene which is an intense climax for the whole movie. It still gives me chills to watch Indy scream at Mola Ram "prepare to meet Khali in hell". Best action sequence of all time in my list.

Thank you everyone for clarifying about what Pauline Kael thought of The Empire Strikes Back and I did read her review on geosites it is very glowing and in response to Chris Zeidel,What I was trying to say is that sequels to critically acclaimed movies are daring in the sense that they are they are put in a position where thay have to be as good,better or at least worthy to the original and so there is alot demand at what audiences want and I do agree that there are sequels out there that were made just so the studio could make a buck like Tomb Raider:Cradle of life,Arthur 2:On the Rocks , Deuce Bigalo European Gigalo and Major League II.Also I often find that with original films that with The Godfather,for example that they were just introducing the concept and the characters because I never got a sense of corleone family's history or what made them tick (don't get me wrong ,I love the movie this is just a minor critisism and it was a compelling story from start to finish I just thought that Part II was more compelling and deepened the story wonderfully by giving you a modern story and a back story).I think there are people that feel and that I have met that believe that sequels are never as good as the originals(and possibly Chris Zeidel might be one of them)and if they have this belief ,and that's cool and often I do think sequels are cheapenings but I think people should give sequels a chance because sometimes they can be entertaining on their own terms.While I disagree with Jim Emerson that Temple of Doom is better than Raiders I do admire that he was bold to say this and that he has the courage to put things into perspective(which is an advantage he has over his mentor Roger Ebert) and if you think I'm here just to bash originals then I think that is not altogether fair because I do prefer Toy Story to Toy Story 2 and I still prefer Superman:The Movie to Superman II and Ghostbusters is definetely better than Ghostbusters II and I do prefer Dr.No to Goldfinger.I don't expect everybody to agree with my conclusions and what I have said on this post but I'm just saying this as a way to voice my opinion and to start a springboard for discussion.

P.S.:I don't mean to attack Roger Ebert,I love his work to pieces and I think Jim Emerson is the best film blogger on the internet but as a movie critic I don't think he's all that hot because although his CinePad is exceedingly well designed and crafted his reviews in it to me lack simplicity and subtlety with movie reviews the less is more concept helps a great deal.

It should be noted, and this will probably only be realised with at least a second viewing ot ToD, that it is the one movie in the series closest to its source: the cinematic and newspaper adventure serial.

Sure, Raiders is a masterpiece, as perfect as a movie can be without getting boring; it is surely more concise and consistent than Temple, which is clearly more cliffhanger. If you have ever read Frank Robbins' Johnny Hazard [a newspaper serial starting in 1944, going strong till 1977] or the Tarzan strip, you'd immediately recognise them in Temple of Doom. And that is what makes it more enduring than Last Crusade, which already shows its age.

Another big advantage of ToD over Last Crusade - beside the much better comic relief and characterisation - is that it looks fresh, not just like a rehash, a bad remake, of Raiders. Curiously that is what makes Skull a strong contender in the market, it foregos the Christian symbolism and artefact in favour of a completely outlandish [sorry] plot.

Unfortunately the new movie gets bogged down by the same urge already plagueing Crusade to constantly wink at the audience. Even more annoying is the telegraphing of every single joke, allusion and reference [i.e. Brody's likeness three times, two of those underlined by dialogue about him]. In only one case Spielberg did not do it strong enough, letting many reviewers puzzle over why the monkeys do what they do*.

Temple of Doom has some serious pacing problems, and in PC times labelling the completely fictitious, fantasy antagonists 'Indians' surely doesn't help.** So, ToD is not a masterpiece, but it still is one hell of a good movie.

*Let's just say: Mutt's obsession with his hair does make sense after all.
**Let's be honest: neither the Nazis nor the Indians or the Communists in the Indiana Jones movies have anything to do with reality, they are fantasy characters in a fantasy world, which looks a lot like ours but isn't.

Well I'm going to leave this blog and say that other their were other films where I thought the original was better than the sequel I still think the first Lethal Weapon is the best in the series and the same thing with the Planet of the Apes series.So often sequels I think sequels are rarely as good or better than their originals.

My take on Indy 4: It's a pretty silly film but I found a least the first part of it entertaining. It's pretty amusing the way it incorporates several touchstones of the fifties: cruising, communists, nuclear testing, greasers, campus protesters. Once the film leaves the US though I the silliness becomes more of an in-joke and I found it more tedious than amusing.

Overall and on the whole I thought Indy 4 was a pretty fun film but I have to say that it was nowhere near as fun as Raiders or Last Crusade and I think Indy 4 is good but we could have done without it and I seem to only like Indiana Jones movies best when he is going after a religious artifact and the german army is on his tail.Often I did think the humor in Indy 4 was flat and had to many in-jokes and russians didn't seem as much of a threat to Indiana Jones as the germans did.

Reilly and everyone,

First, no one seems to have touched upon this idea which is strange to me. "Temple of Doom" isn't a sequel...it's a prequel. Arguing that the darker approach to the film by saying it's out of place as a sequel is correct. But it's not a sequel. The reason why Indie doesn't have the same jovial sense of humor as he does in "Radiers" is because he's younger, not as wise. he's scrappier. And to go along with the darker attitude is a darker movie. It's fitting. He seeks "fortune and glory". It's what allows him to be susceptible to the potion he's forced to drink. It isn't until the end of "Doom" that he realizes there's more to the beliefs and archeology of the world than becoming well known for discovering them.

Seeing a younger rougher Jones also helps give further depth to the Marion/Jones relationship in the (actual) sequel and first film "Raiders of the Lost Arc".

Sequels/prequels have a difficult time anyway. The critics, both professional and pedestrian always want to see the same thing they saw before. The thing that made the original so "great" to them. But if it was the exact same thing it would be ridiculed for not doing something different or being lesser of the same thing. It takes time for a sequel to become part of the over all feel of a series of films. What artists wouldn't want to do something different with a second film? They want to further explore the character. Take a lok at "Yojimbo" and "Sanjuro", a brilliant film with an equally brilliant sequel. The tone is different but by exploring different tones they're freeer to explore different sides of the character. heck look at the long running series "Zatoichi"! It's genius how the character recreates itself with each movie because the tone is different.

Anyway, I remember seeing "Doom" as a child and loved every moment of it, as I had loved "Raiders" when i first saw that. It isn't the subject matter of or the far fetchedness of the new film that makes it a little less enjoyable for me. It's the fact that Indie doesn't figure anything out in the end. He doesn't scrap and claw his way through things, instead everything is figured out for him and the deus ex machina he's given forces him into the background of his own story. Again...more on my blog about the fourth film.

Just a side note to my longer one. The comparison to "Empire Strikes back" doesn't work for me. "Empire" is the second act of a much larger story so the requirement is for it to be darker.

"Doom" is the first act in a segmented series of stories.

I understand the feeling of the comparison, but the logic doesn't necessarily play out.

"Sure, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is a terrific action movie. It's constructed with such joy, and I've always felt like the darker elements only add to the fun. I'd love to say that "Temple of Doom" is as good as "Raiders", but I just can't. Kate Capshaw's parody of damsel in distress is such a horrific misfire. She's wonderful in the musical number, but once she stops singing and starts speaking, things just go downhill. She also receives considerably more screen time than any other female character in the Indy series, appearing in nearly every scene. She delivers a pretty staggering blow to an otherwise terrific film. Does anyone who claims that "Temple of Doom" is the best of the series actually like her? I've heard plenty of arguments about why "Temple of Doom" is the greatest film of the series, and almost all of them tend to forget about the fact that Willie Scott is in the film. Anyway, just curious.

"Posted by: Clark Douglas | May 25, 2008 05:01 PM"

Likewise, this character ruined the film for me, as did the film's over-the-top liberties with Indian culture. But, to answer your question, I've discovered in arguments with SW prequel fans that there are plenty of misogynists out there who do enjoy seeing a woman like Willie Scott act like a complete bimbo and, in the case of the prequels, enjoy seeing an initially strong character like Padme Amidala devolve over the course of the films into one of the worst weak woman stereotypes in recent memory. And, at the present time, one need look no further than the U.S. presidential campaign to find hoards reacting with glee to a certain woman's misfortune.

I think the kid in the movie called short-round was annoying and added nothing to the film and sadly the film had to use cheap gross out scenes to gets thrills(like ripping out a beating heart).

Sam.

The best in the series? That would be like saying "Temple" is the worst. They're all equally as pleasurable and full of the joy of filmmaking that Spielberg brings. The first 4 minutes of "Crstal Skull" has more joy for filmmaking than any movie I've seen this year.

And I love Willie and Short Round. So, there!

Misogynists? Because they enjoy a character? I hate every character in the SW prequels does that make me an apathetic person? I happen to lie Willie, I can't imagine that makes me a misogynist. Seems like a strange statement to make.

I notice that there were other favorable reviews that critics other than Pauline Kael gave for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom because I reading that back in 1984 that Roger Ebert thought Temple of Doom was as good as Raiders and gave it four stars and both Neal Gabler and Jeffrey Lyons from Sneak previews(They came after Siskel and Ebert when their show would then be called At The Movies with Siskel and Ebert) gave it a favorable review.So I don't think everyone was shocked and horrified by it back in 1984.

Jim, thanks for the prod in getting me to see Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom again. I have some major apologizing to do about this movie, as I was dismissive of it when it came out in 1984 and have maintained, over having seen it a few times since then, that it was, with the exception of that opening "Anything Goes" montage, an inferior installment in a series for which I have no great love to begin with. Well, I saw it again this past weekend, and it felt like the veil had been pulled away. I loved it-- it's clearly, to these eyes, the pinnacle of the series, and I'll try to make time to write further about why sometime this week. I'm still bored by the other three, but Doom is the real deal. And it does seem true-- if Spielberg feels like he has to apologize for a movie (say, 1941 and this one), the chances are pretty good that it's wa-a-a-a-ay better than anyone, director included, is giving it credit for. How much of a turnaround did I do on this movie? Why, I even liked Kate Capshaw!

I watched the mine car chase again on You Tube and had forgotten about two bothersome details in that otherwise fantastic chase (but still far inferior to the desert chase in Raiders.) What are the odds that a mine car could jump off a rail, fly through the air, and land back on track without derailing? As a teenager in 1984, I loathed that particular bending of the Laws of Believability and felt betrayed by Spielberg for not really believing in the physics of this world he'd created. The second troubling part of that chase was the flooding of the mining shaft. Even a child could see clearly that the amount of water needed to fill that entire mining shaft, let alone all of the lava-filled chasms along the way, far exceeded the volume stored in that supposedly gargantuan storage tank. I suppose these details wouldn't bother most adults who merely dismissed these details as part of a "not to be taken too seriously" genre; but at the time, as a teen who idolized Spielberg, I resented seeing that condescending wink.

I met people who think Wrath of Khan is the best of the Star Trek movies,the same way people think Temple of Doom is the best of the indiana jones movies I wonder if anybody shares this sentiment

I think there are a few movies like this, that work more as a whirlwind of cinematic influences than as a dramatic narrative. I have a short list of favourites where these are concerned, all underrated:

-Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
-Kill Bill, Vol. 1
-Pirates of the Carribean - Dead Man's Chest
-Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

I know there are others, but I can't think of them right now...

Silly point above: Of course The Temple of Doom is a sequel; just because in the movie's timeline it occurs before Raiders doesn't change the fact that the audience saw Raiders first.

All this filmbuff blathering about homages to movies that, at the time, were about 50 years old, misses the point. The audience doesn't care, they came to see another movie starring their favorite hero.

What made Temple of Doom disappointing is that Spielberg spent more time and energy on elaborate set pieces and not enough on the plot or the characters accompanying Indy on his adventure. The movie is visually stimulating but doesn't have the heart that Raiders did. It's the same mistake he made with 1941.

He fixed that oversight with The Last Crusade, and kept on target with Crystal Skull, and introduced some new ideas into the format as well.