|
Post by Jerk on Jul 11, 2017 6:55:24 GMT
Temple of doom. I can't believe you're even questioning this.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Jul 11, 2017 15:51:30 GMT
I can't believe that so many people are voting for Temple Of Doom. Kate Capshaw's character is one of the most annoying characters in movie history. The movie should have been called: "Indiana Jones and the Whiny Screaming Spoiled Brat". Yes, as an actor Shia LeBouf may not have many fans, but at least his character didn't make Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull painful to watch.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jul 11, 2017 18:21:23 GMT
Temple of Doom was the only Indiana Jones film I didn't see theatrically. Mom said "NO WAY" when it first came out. She had a lot of friends that swayed her opinion especially when rumors of the heart being ripped out and live animals being eaten (the baby snakes). I eventually saw it either on HBO or when McDonalds did the Young Indiana Jones promotion by selling the films on VHS with a purchase of a Big Mac or something. It's definitely the worst sequel. Between Kate Capshaw screaming at everything and Short Round shouting "INDY, I LOVE YOU!!!!" when burning Indy, it's just a mess. The whole dining scene with the Indian nobility and British officers was just plain non-sense, just another way for Spielberg to show his main squeeze passing out and reacting in a typical way. The bugs in the secret chamber were just capped off by Mola Ram's sacrifice of the living victim. People complain that Last Crusade had too much silly jokes in it and was too light hearted, but Temple of Doom tries too hard to be serious in some sequences, but then too over the top in others. Kingdom had some very stupid parts in it and the worst offender was Shia LaBeouf's entire role, but outside of that the story was compelling and the slight references to Young Indiana Jones were clever (such as Indy spitting as a homage to his serving with Pancho Villa). I agree some of the CGI was misplaced and badly done but the overall adventure was much more compelling. Full disclosure, I still love all teh films and am not a hater at all, but Temple just falls flat for me (although there are some well done parts like the climax on the rope bridge (outside of that one Indian troop's Enfield jamming on him).
My rankings (and yes I do place Last Crusade slightly ahead of Raiders - the interplay between Connery and Ford is just priceless).
1. Last Crusade A+ - one of the best sequels of any film ever made. 2. Raiders A 3. Kingdom B- 4. Temple C+
|
|
|
Post by Reggie_Stration on Jul 12, 2017 12:39:10 GMT
Kingdom is worse than Temple in practically every department barring maybe character annoyance, which would be a close one as Kingdom has its share of useless, annoying characters. And Temple is by no means the favourite of mine it used to be.
Temple has a better villain, a better intro, a better ending (the bridge scene is fairly iconic and nicely shot), less OTT moments and Temple has a handful of them, more Indy kills, and obviously a better look and feel with a lack of CGI taking over the majority of set pieces.
Raiders is by far the best of these films, hands down.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 12, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
Kingdom is worse than Temple in practically every department barring maybe character annoyance Oh I think Kingdom isn't as bad as TOD for its dubious racial stereotyping/ignorance
|
|
|
Post by Reggie_Stration on Jul 12, 2017 12:58:01 GMT
Kingdom is worse than Temple in practically every department barring maybe character annoyance Oh I think Kingdom isn't as bad as TOD for its dubious racial stereotyping/ignorance Yes this too.
|
|
|
Post by fartyfartsalot on Jul 12, 2017 16:28:09 GMT
Kingdom is worse than Temple in practically every department barring maybe character annoyance, which would be a close one as Kingdom has its share of useless, annoying characters. And Temple is by no means the favourite of mine it used to be. Temple has a better villain, a better intro, a better ending (the bridge scene is fairly iconic and nicely shot), less OTT moments and Temple has a handful of them, more Indy kills, and obviously a better look and feel with a lack of CGI taking over the majority of set pieces. Raiders is by far the best of these films, hands down. Did you like The Last Crusade?
|
|
|
Post by Reggie_Stration on Jul 12, 2017 20:57:36 GMT
Kingdom is worse than Temple in practically every department barring maybe character annoyance, which would be a close one as Kingdom has its share of useless, annoying characters. And Temple is by no means the favourite of mine it used to be. Temple has a better villain, a better intro, a better ending (the bridge scene is fairly iconic and nicely shot), less OTT moments and Temple has a handful of them, more Indy kills, and obviously a better look and feel with a lack of CGI taking over the majority of set pieces. Raiders is by far the best of these films, hands down. Did you like The Last Crusade? Yes I like Last Crusade, it's my second favourite. I like Temple too. They fall short of the standard of Raiders which is one of my all time favourite films. It's almost perfect in every way, and has that childhood nostalgia to add to it.
|
|
|
Post by fartyfartsalot on Jul 13, 2017 1:44:02 GMT
Did you like The Last Crusade? Yes I like Last Crusade, it's my second favourite. I like Temple too. They fall short of the standard of Raiders which is one of my all time favourite films. It's almost perfect in every way, and has that childhood nostalgia to add to it. What are your thoughts on the possible 5th one being made? If that will ever happen.
|
|
|
Post by Reggie_Stration on Jul 15, 2017 11:31:55 GMT
Yes I like Last Crusade, it's my second favourite. I like Temple too. They fall short of the standard of Raiders which is one of my all time favourite films. It's almost perfect in every way, and has that childhood nostalgia to add to it. What are your thoughts on the possible 5th one being made? If that will ever happen. Firstly I wouldn't be surprised if it was made, and secondly I wouldn't be surprised if it sucked.
|
|