Is it just me or does this film look absolutely visually stunning for a 1981 film. The general cinematography is more impressive than Superman II and Empire Strikes Back, released at that time.
No CGI and cost the equivalent of 50 million dollars too.
Yes, Doom has an awful shrieking woman, one extremely annoying kid, and hundreds of irritating kids from that village. It also contains a lot of mumbo jumbo and gibberish..
One other thing:-
The villagers are starving, their crops have failed, their livestock has all died................but they have several well fed elephants. Are they sacred or something?
It was okay. It wasn't as bad as a lot of people made it out to be.
There was absolutely no need for it to be made though. They totally lost the feel of the old Indy films and it ended up being some kind of weird parody.
I've never seen the whole of it, but I've heard it isn't that good.
didn't Shia Labeouf (sp?) criticise Spielberg and Lucas.If that's the case, that was a bit rich coming from someone who had been in films based on a kid's toy!
Temple of Doom was just an inferior re-write of the original ROLA, designed to cash-in on the original's success quickly, like so many follow-ups.
Last Crusade was even more of a re-write of Raiders than TOD was. Same villains (Nazis) after a Biblical artefact (Lost Ark in Raiders, Holy Grail in Last Crusade), brought back several of the same supporting characters (Sallah, Brody - hell, they even copy exactly the same entrance for Brody), features smooth villain in it for himself and slighty stupid sadistic Nazi henchman. It was hilarious how much of a tribute to Raiders Last Crusade was. That's why most people like those two best. Because they're essentially the same film.
Compared to Last Crusade, Temple of Doom was a groundbreaking departure!
I had to go out, but caught the first half hour or so on BBC1 last night! Still thrilling 30 years down the line. Temple of Doom bucks the sequel being as good as the original thanks to shreiking Kate Capshaw and that annoying kid. But brought back to form with The Last Crusade. Karen Allen is still the best heroine of all 3 though!
I know it is! what I mean't that it was the second film and bucks the trend that the second film is better than the original, see Spiderman 2 and The Empire Strikes Back for examples.
Temple of Doom was just an inferior re-write of the original ROLA, designed to cash-in on the original's success quickly, like so many follow-ups. The ending, especially, was feeble compared to Raider's unforgettable mind-blowing climax. I remember the 'annoying kid', that south-east Asian lad. 'Ha-ha-ha, that's funny!' he goes, at the end, when Indy gets squirted by an elephant's truck, in a little bit of final light relief. He's lucky Jones didn't give him a good clip round the ear!
The ending of TOD feeble - are you mad? I'll give you the flabby middle, but the end is an amazing 40 minutes of non stop action. The rescue, the conveyor belt, the minecart, the flood and then the Bridge - one of the best run of action in any film ever.
I like Raiders, but think it's a bit flabby in parts.
Don't like Temple much. A lot of it is just naff. Wouldn't want to re-watch it now.
Am happy to re-watch Crusade and Skull.
For me:-
Crusade > Raiders/Skull >>>>> Temple
Oh yes. HATE Temple and i can't stand the people who say "oh it's different from the others, you just don't get it" No. It's crap and Kate Capshaw is crap.
I love Temple. I remember the anticipation waiting for it to be released, and then when I watched it I wasn't disappointed. As much as I love Raiders, Temple remains my favourite.
The first three Indiana Jones pulled off a very impressive movie move; they were all superb; a damn near perfect trilogy is rare, I can think of the aforementioned Indy flicks, the three original Star Wars movies, The Back to the Future films and Nolan's Batman films.
But The Crystal Skull was a wretched, car-crash of a film and has ultimately sullied the first three. Worst of all for an Indiana Jones film, it was boring. Something the first three aren't in any way.
Oh yes. HATE Temple and i can't stand the people who say "oh it's different from the others, you just don't get it" No. It's crap and Kate Capshaw is crap.
The last act of TOD from when Indy rescues the kids in the mine is just sublime B-Movie action though. The chase across the walkways, the fight over the crusher, the mine-cart, the water, the bridge. Superb.
Temple was my favourite, it was the more fun of the three. I always thought of Raiders as a little too dark and edgy. Crusade seemed too forced, like it was tacked on to complete a trilogy, with Connery inserted as a bit of a gimmick.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is a classic all three films are, my fav is Last Crusade everything just clicked into place with that film by far the best of the three!
I thought Last Crusade was terrible. crap CGI, balsa wood boats being chewed up by ships' propellers, and worst of all, SEAN CONNERY.
I never believed Connery was Indy's father, not for a second.
Raiders just never gets boring, seen it so many times. Amazed at what they got away with for a PG back then. Bodies on spikes, bloody fist fights, gun shot to the head, man sliced up by propellers, melting faces and exploding heads!
I thought Last Crusade was terrible. crap CGI, balsa wood boats being chewed up by ships' propellers, and worst of all, SEAN CONNERY.
I never believed Connery was Indy's father, not for a second.
Actually, there was something rather fake about the set design in Crusade - especially compared to Raiders 8 years earlier.
It's like his production team had lost some of the nack of recreating physical environments & lighting them realistically - or perhaps he lost quite a few members of his original team? Or maybe they had a lot less preparation time in Crusade and had to build the indoor sets faster.
Don't know, but there's definitely a whole bunch of odd-looking and ropey background sets in Crusade. Mixed in with some unfortunate SFX sequences.
Raiders looks a much higher quality piece of film-making all round.
Actually, there was something rather fake about the set design in Crusade - especially compared to Raiders 8 years earlier.
It's like his production team had lost some of the nack of recreating physical environments & lighting them realistically - or perhaps he lost quite a few members of his original team? Or maybe they had a lot less preparation time in Crusade and had to build the indoor sets faster.
Don't know, but there's definitely a whole bunch of odd-looking and ropey background sets in Crusade. Mixed in with some unfortunate SFX sequences.
Raiders looks a much higher quality piece of film-making all round.
Raiders looks better quality because the B-Movie / Serial Adventure nature of the content lends itself to more rough and ready filmmaking. The slicker the effects got, the worse it looked. Raiders and Temple have a kind of grainy look to them that really serves the tone properly.
This is one of my favourite movie stills, not just from the Indy series, but of films generally, because it invokes that feeling of B-Movie / Hollywood action adventure like no other.
Still a brilliant film !
Why weren't Indy and Marion destroyed along with the Nazi soldiers etc ?
Was it simply because they didn't look at the Ark ?
Is that an eyeball on the top of the post Indy and Marion are tied to at the end of the film ?
I've been watching Raiders for years and years and years even before I got beyond just liking all the actions bits. And I always assumed from Day one they'd be simply simply because they shut their eyes. Indy was well on the case.
As much as I love the first three Indy films, my favourite happens to be Crystal Skull. Great action scenes and witty one liners!
As far as i;m concerned, the only thing Skull has against it, is the very fact that it took so long to get to making it. To me it is just an Indy film and they;ve always been winners for me.
It's established in the Bible in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that anyone who sees the wrath of God dies, so they escape by not looking at it (as Lot and family do in the Bible).
I am afraid my knowledge of ancient texts is somewhat vague.... are you referring to the original Bible, written in English, and which was never translated, censored and retranslated throughout the ages.
I am afraid my knowledge of ancient texts is somewhat vague.... are you referring to the original Bible, written in English, and which was never translated, censored and retranslated throughout the ages.
As if there isn't enough picking at religion scab threads on DS, you go and start it here.
Comments
No CGI and cost the equivalent of 50 million dollars too.
One other thing:-
The villagers are starving, their crops have failed, their livestock has all died................but they have several well fed elephants.
I hated the Crystal Skull, awful
There was absolutely no need for it to be made though. They totally lost the feel of the old Indy films and it ended up being some kind of weird parody.
It's not a terrible film though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE
I've never seen the whole of it, but I've heard it isn't that good.
didn't Shia Labeouf (sp?) criticise Spielberg and Lucas.If that's the case, that was a bit rich coming from someone who had been in films based on a kid's toy!
Last Crusade was even more of a re-write of Raiders than TOD was. Same villains (Nazis) after a Biblical artefact (Lost Ark in Raiders, Holy Grail in Last Crusade), brought back several of the same supporting characters (Sallah, Brody - hell, they even copy exactly the same entrance for Brody), features smooth villain in it for himself and slighty stupid sadistic Nazi henchman. It was hilarious how much of a tribute to Raiders Last Crusade was. That's why most people like those two best. Because they're essentially the same film.
Compared to Last Crusade, Temple of Doom was a groundbreaking departure!
Benny Hill got to that gag first of course!
temple of doom is actually a prequel.
I know it is! what I mean't that it was the second film and bucks the trend that the second film is better than the original, see Spiderman 2 and The Empire Strikes Back for examples.
The ending of TOD feeble - are you mad? I'll give you the flabby middle, but the end is an amazing 40 minutes of non stop action. The rescue, the conveyor belt, the minecart, the flood and then the Bridge - one of the best run of action in any film ever.
Oh yes. HATE Temple and i can't stand the people who say "oh it's different from the others, you just don't get it" No. It's crap and Kate Capshaw is crap.
But The Crystal Skull was a wretched, car-crash of a film and has ultimately sullied the first three. Worst of all for an Indiana Jones film, it was boring. Something the first three aren't in any way.
And all because Harrison Ford had a 'reaction' to the local food that day so wasn't up to doing the rehearsed sword-fight.
http://www.blastr.com/2012/09/see_the_swordfight_that_n.php
The last act of TOD from when Indy rescues the kids in the mine is just sublime B-Movie action though. The chase across the walkways, the fight over the crusher, the mine-cart, the water, the bridge. Superb.
I never believed Connery was Indy's father, not for a second.
It's like his production team had lost some of the nack of recreating physical environments & lighting them realistically - or perhaps he lost quite a few members of his original team? Or maybe they had a lot less preparation time in Crusade and had to build the indoor sets faster.
Don't know, but there's definitely a whole bunch of odd-looking and ropey background sets in Crusade. Mixed in with some unfortunate SFX sequences.
Raiders looks a much higher quality piece of film-making all round.
Raiders looks better quality because the B-Movie / Serial Adventure nature of the content lends itself to more rough and ready filmmaking. The slicker the effects got, the worse it looked. Raiders and Temple have a kind of grainy look to them that really serves the tone properly.
This is one of my favourite movie stills, not just from the Indy series, but of films generally, because it invokes that feeling of B-Movie / Hollywood action adventure like no other.
I've been watching Raiders for years and years and years even before I got beyond just liking all the actions bits.
As far as i;m concerned, the only thing Skull has against it, is the very fact that it took so long to get to making it. To me it is just an Indy film and they;ve always been winners for me.
Grandad Indy would have ducked, waited and thought. "Damn"
I am afraid my knowledge of ancient texts is somewhat vague.... are you referring to the original Bible, written in English, and which was never translated, censored and retranslated throughout the ages.
As if there isn't enough picking at religion scab threads on DS, you go and start it here.