Thursday, November 8, 2007

Temple of Doom


I want it known that despite the reputation that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a bad movie, it isn't. In fact it is a kick-ass movie. I would bet that anyone claiming otherwise has not seen it in a long time. I'm not saying that it is better than Raiders of the Lost Ark or Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Don't get me wrong. But very few action/adventure movies would be considered "good" if they were all constantly compared to the first and third Indy movies. I just finished Temple of Doom and I'm telling you, watch it again for the first time. You will be surprised.
Two little mentioned things about the movie:
First, did any of you know that Dan Akroyd is in Temple of Doom? He plays the guy who talks to Indy as he gets onto the plane at the beginning.
Second, Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. The events of Raiders take place in 1936. Temple of Doom takes place in 1935. That's great! I love that they did that but didn't make a big deal out of it.

Matt

4 comments:

AdamB said...

All three are pretty mediocre, some more so than others. Completely predictable and even trite. How's Jones compare to Apocalypse Now or Pulp Fiction?

To be fair, what probably ruined it for me is seeing the Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular! at MGM Studios. Dangerously cheezy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_Epic_Stunt_Spectacular!

Matt Grosso said...

Trying to compare these movies to Apocalypse Now or Pulp Fiction is a waste of time. How does Apocalypse Now compare to Star Wars or There's Something About Mary. These movies simply aren't in competition. The idea that there is some system in which all movies can be ranked for relative quality is silly. Pulp Fiction is incredible for entirely different reasons than Indiana Jones. "Predictable" and "trite" are words that can be applied to many movies that still have value and are great movies. The above mentioned Star Wars comes to mind.

Brian said...

Hey Matt. How's it going?

I went through this with you and we sat down and re-viewed Jones 3. It didn't change my opinion that it's the worst of the three movies and generally lacks spunk. As I believe Jones 4 will, also.

It's hilarious that there is even debate about what is a good movie. Your opinion, in this case, means that you enjoyed it. Why is everyone else supposed too? Point at hand, Ed Norton, just because he was amazing in "Am. His. X" doesn't mean "Frita" was better for him being in it.

Another point, to my detriment, is that I love horror movies. Really bad ones in particular. The more obvious the gag the better for me. I am in a film-peer circle of about three. Oh well, I'm going to keep watching, laughing, and groaning regardless of the collective "you's" opinion of this genre.

You said yourself that there is no system in which all movies can be ranked... so why try? Just enjoy what you like.

When are you coming back to town?

AdamB said...

The idea that there is some system in which all movies can be ranked for relative quality is silly.

Silly but true.

Apocalpse Now > Something About Mary > Star Wars.