Re: How Come Temple's Got a Bad Rap?

Posted by Webley from odo.belgium.eu.net on October 05, 1998 at 12:41:04:

In Reply to: How Come Temple's Got a Bad Rap? posted by Andrea on October 04, 1998 at 10:34:12:

: Am I one of the few that believe Temple of Doom is arguably the best
: in the series? Most completely disagree with me, which is perfectly
: allright.

: Still, I find Temple to be *ultimate* Indy: Ford isn't as wooden, the
: action is larger than life (as it should be), the tone lighter (I
: feel Raiders was taking itself a bit too seriously), the
: characters humorous and the locations most exotic of the series.
: Not to mention the risks Speilberg took with this one. I just hate to hear Speilberg apologizing for this entry in the series ["show a little backbone, will ya'?!"]

: Crusade, by comparison, was quite a reactionary response to those
: who didn't like Temple; in my opinion, it was extremely conservative
: and thus by the numbers. It was safe. And this was the film experience
: that convinced me to be a filmmaker!

: Of course, Raiders started it all, and it's fabulous. But like I pointed out, I felt the tone was just a bit too serious. Hey, we're talking pulp here! Don't get me wrong, I love Indy, but it seems Temple always, unjustifiably, gets the bad rap.

: -Andrea

: P.S. For those of you not familiar with Pauline Kael, the former film critic for the New Yorker, I would strongly suggest you check out her review on Temple. It hits the nail on the head, in my opinion, and truly does the film critical justice.

I do not agree with the most of the film critics that The Temple of Doom was a big flop, to much action and that it was to dark. First it was George Lucas' idea to make the second movie darker than the other ones, he did the same thing with The Empire strikes Back and that was according to the film critics here the best of the tree. Personally I love Doom as much as the other 2, maybe a litle more in some ways.
I will never understand those film critics!
-Webley

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : Am I one of the few that believe Temple of Doom is arguably the best
: : in the series? Most completely disagree with me, which is perfectly 
: : allright.

: : Still, I find Temple to be *ultimate* Indy: Ford isn't as wooden, the
: : action is larger than life (as it should be), the tone lighter (I
: : feel Raiders was taking itself a bit too seriously), the 
: : characters humorous and the locations most exotic of the series. 
: : Not to mention the risks Speilberg took with this one. I just hate to hear Speilberg apologizing for this entry in the series ["show a little backbone, will ya'?!"]

: : Crusade, by comparison, was quite a reactionary response to those
: : who didn't like Temple; in my opinion, it was extremely conservative 
: : and thus by the numbers. It was safe. And this was the film experience
: : that convinced me to be a filmmaker!

: : Of course, Raiders started it all, and it's fabulous. But like I pointed out, I felt the tone was just a bit too serious. Hey, we're talking pulp here! Don't get me wrong, I love Indy, but it seems Temple always, unjustifiably, gets the bad rap.

: : -Andrea

: : P.S. For those of you not familiar with Pauline Kael, the former film critic for the New Yorker, I would strongly suggest you check out her review on Temple. It hits the nail on the head, in my opinion, and truly does the film critical justice.

: I do not agree with the most of the film critics that The Temple of Doom was a big flop, to much action and that it was to dark.  First it was George Lucas' idea to make the second movie darker than the other ones, he did the same thing with The Empire strikes Back and that was according to the film critics here the best of the tree.  Personally I love Doom as much as the other 2, maybe a litle more in some ways.
: I will never understand those film critics!
: -Webley

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]