SPOILERS
The 1980's were a busy decade for Harrison Ford. From the second "Star Wars" film in 1980 through to the final "Indiana Jones" film in 1989, Ford was rarely away from the picture screen. This was not always a good thing however as this middle of the road second adventure about Dr Jones from 1984 proved.
In "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", we find Dr Jones in Shanghai in 1935. After a violent confrontation with a Chinese villain, Jones eventually finds himself in India. Taken to a small village, he encounters a badly treated people in need of help. To do this, Jones will have to travel to an ancient palace and combat the forces of evil.
The key problem with this film is it's problems in the plot department. Whilst a fun film to doze off to on a Sunday afternoon, it is by a long distance the worst of the three "Indiana Jones" films. With a story involving an evil cult underneath an ancient palace, the story just doesn't have the special feeling which "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Last Crusade" thrive on. Whether because of a considerable lack of Nazi's (this film actually being a prequel to "Raiders") or because Amrish Puri's Mola Ram just isn't that interesting a character, "Temple of Doom" simply feels lacking.
At the same time, another problem with this film is the below par standard of acting. With characters like Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) and Willie Scott (future Mrs Spielberg, Kate Capshaw), we should never have expected much, but both performances are, to say the least, dreadful. Add to this some awful performances by the villagefolk who Indy is helping, and you know there's problems.
It feels a shame that so much of this film is wrong, when the other two films of the trilogy are so good. With bad choices in plot and characters (Denholm Elliot's Marcus is a necessity for any Indiana Jones film), the story never really takes off and feels awkward. At just under two hours long, this film seems to drag and makes you feel like your watching all three parts of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Still, for something to put on television and doze off to, it does work wonders. The question though is whether this is actually a good thing.
The 1980's were a busy decade for Harrison Ford. From the second "Star Wars" film in 1980 through to the final "Indiana Jones" film in 1989, Ford was rarely away from the picture screen. This was not always a good thing however as this middle of the road second adventure about Dr Jones from 1984 proved.
In "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", we find Dr Jones in Shanghai in 1935. After a violent confrontation with a Chinese villain, Jones eventually finds himself in India. Taken to a small village, he encounters a badly treated people in need of help. To do this, Jones will have to travel to an ancient palace and combat the forces of evil.
The key problem with this film is it's problems in the plot department. Whilst a fun film to doze off to on a Sunday afternoon, it is by a long distance the worst of the three "Indiana Jones" films. With a story involving an evil cult underneath an ancient palace, the story just doesn't have the special feeling which "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Last Crusade" thrive on. Whether because of a considerable lack of Nazi's (this film actually being a prequel to "Raiders") or because Amrish Puri's Mola Ram just isn't that interesting a character, "Temple of Doom" simply feels lacking.
At the same time, another problem with this film is the below par standard of acting. With characters like Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) and Willie Scott (future Mrs Spielberg, Kate Capshaw), we should never have expected much, but both performances are, to say the least, dreadful. Add to this some awful performances by the villagefolk who Indy is helping, and you know there's problems.
It feels a shame that so much of this film is wrong, when the other two films of the trilogy are so good. With bad choices in plot and characters (Denholm Elliot's Marcus is a necessity for any Indiana Jones film), the story never really takes off and feels awkward. At just under two hours long, this film seems to drag and makes you feel like your watching all three parts of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Still, for something to put on television and doze off to, it does work wonders. The question though is whether this is actually a good thing.