Retro Review: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Filed under: Action, Fandom, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Remakes and Sequels, Retro Cinema
Early on in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Indy turns to his soon-to-be love interest and his newfound sidekick – a singer in Shanghai's Club Obi Wan (Kate Capshaw) and a scrappy pickpocket (Ke Huy Quan), respectively – and intones, "I think we got a big problem." He's not kidding: the warning comes toward the end of a miraculous 20-minute opening sequence during which Dr. Jones gets poisoned while trying to exchange the remains of a dead emperor for a legendary diamond, plays floor hockey for the diamond and the antidote, impales someone on a kebab, crashes through a window behind a rolling metal gong, and stows away in a plane full of poultry only to have the pilots ditch and take the only parachutes with them. He then proceeds to leap out of the plane on a rubber life raft, which crashes off a cliff and careens down some vicious Indian whitewater. "Big problem" doesn't quite describe it; the torrent of obstacles and challenges that Spielberg and Lucas hurl at their hero in the first reel of this first sequel seems downright cruel. But their unkindness aside, the barreling momentum, brilliant staging, and breezy nonchalance of Temple of Doom's opening evoke something rarely found in Raiders of the Lost Ark and more rarely still in the rest of Steven Spielberg's career: a sense that Spielberg -- the master, the magician -- is at play.
It's commonly accepted that Temple of Doom is less memorable, and less breathtakingly iconic than Raiders. Instead of Nazis and Ronald Lacey's terrifying Arnold Toht, we get an anonymous pagan cult vaguely bent on world domination, and a sneering, megalomaniacal chieftain who never quite achieves genuine menace. The Ark of the Covenant, universally known and desired, is replaced with a magic rock. No doubt the second film has less heft, less power; it feels less like an epic, eternal adventure. But some of that is weight lifted off of the series' shoulders. Temple of Doom isn't as important, as great, or as awe-inspiring as its predecessor, but the franchise has never felt this loose or this effortlessly self-effacing. Its lowered ambitions give it the freedom occasionally to be – dare I say it? – more fun.
Not coincidentally, Temple of Doom is also a great place to go if you want to be amazed by Spielberg's mastery of the form. Consider the incredible rhythm and pacing of the dinner scene, where exposition is dispensed at one end of the table as Indy talks shop with the Prime Minister, while at the other end, Capshaw's Willie Scott contends with an increasingly more disgusting barrage of eastern delicacies culminating in a dessert of "chilled monkey brains" eaten out of the severed head. The scene is perfect: it advances the plot without getting mired in dialogue, and earns laughs without degenerating into camp or betraying the films' tone. Recall, too, Indy and Willie's genius courtship ("Five minutes!"), which ends with him bursting into her chambers in search of assassins only to be met with her cry of "Oh, be gentle with me, be gentle with me!" What a hilarious and efficient way of dealing with the romantic B-story, avoiding sentimentality and allowing the film to pitch forward from there without missing a beat. (What follows, of course, is the great ceiling trap sequence.) Much of Temple of Doom is pop filmmaking at its finest.
As for Indy himself, he's in terrific form here. Though Temple of Doom has him pulling off some of the series' most wildly implausible stunts and escapes, it also finds him at his most likable and relatable. Things don't come easy for him here, as they too often did in Last Crusade – he gets hurt and suffers rounds of bad luck; most importantly, he spends much of the movie dragging along a shrill, embarrassing harpy in the form of Willie Scott. A lot of people despise Willie, and it's true that she can be grating, but she's vital to the film precisely because it's fun to watch Indy get irritated along with us. She makes him vulnerable, and presents more of a crisis than all the Nazis and cultists in the world put together. "You're insulting them, and you're embarrassing me," he mutters through clenched teeth when she attempts to decline the destitute Indian villagers' offering of food, and he seems to feel more pain in that moment than during any of the beatings he's ever received. And his exasperated retort to her hysterical "There are two dead people out here!" during the ceiling trap sequence ("There are gonna be two dead people in here!") is timeless action hero sarcasm.
Unlike Last Crusade, which starts to drag as Indy attempts to work out his daddy issues, Temple of Doom never slows down; I made admiring mention of the furious opening sequence, but the film very nearly maintains that pitch throughout its 115 minutes. The third act offers up one climax after another, each more gleeful and imaginative than the last. The mine train chase is a marvel that might have passed muster in a 2008 summer blockbuster; to see it in a nearly 25-year old film is astonishing.
Assessed coldly, Temple of Doom seems to suffer from some classic symptoms of Sequelitis: it wants desperately to be louder and faster, adds a cute sidekick, and leans hard on action over plot. But somehow, it all works to the film's advantage. Temple of Doom is one of Spielberg's finest moments as a technician, and Indy's as an action hero. Certainly it's an experience different from the incomparable Raiders, the sappy Last Crusade, and the complicated Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. But in its own way, it's a treasure. It represents the franchise at its most relaxed, freewheeling and charming.
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. I agree. That is all.
Posted at 10:07PM on May 20th 2008 by BJ Moneyheffer
3. The scene where they pull the beating heart out of an alive man convinced me to buy the entire Indiana Jones boxed DVD set.
Posted at 12:14AM on May 21st 2008 by Kelsey
4. I'm screening all the Indy movies for my 13 year-old, and I've always thought Temple of Doom was by far the weakest of the films. After watching it this weekend, I realize why.
Temple of Doom is one of those White Man's Burden movies. Not like the Travolta/Belafonte movie, but movies where the locals can't save themselves from the bad people, and it takes some guy (almost alway white) to save them, or to tell their story.
Movies like Biko, Mississipi Burning, The Power of One, Dangerous Minds... those are just a few off the top of my head. Temple of Doom falls right into that genre, and it just kind of falls off for me after they land in India.
Posted at 2:27AM on May 21st 2008 by Richard
5. I disagree with your review, Considering we are talking about colonial India of the 1930s, it perhaps would be of a benefit for the Village to ask a white man to go to the palace. Afterall, the British had siezed the palace it in the first place.
Posted at 12:59AM on May 26th 2008 by Mike
6. ^I don't agree with that. The film is about Indy as the hero so of course it will show him as being a savior to the villagers. There's no racial overtones there either, as he obviously respects Indian culture.
About the chieftain (Mola Ram) being unmenacing: I thought Amrish Puri did a great job with his cold stare and his creepy chanting. He's one of my favorite movie villains ever.
Posted at 2:51AM on May 21st 2008 by mepsipax
7. I don't have a great deal to add other than to see that I thought that was a great review. I've always thought Temple was the weakest of the trilogy but - at the same time - always really enjoyed it. I've often wondered why that was the case and your review really nails it.
Posted at 4:06AM on May 21st 2008 by Andrew
8. Temple of Doom is far more imaginative and memorable than most everything in Last Crusade. The action sequences were amazing to me as a kid and I'm still in awe of that moment when Indiana remarks, "that wasn't so bad," right before going off a cliff.
I think that both Spielberg and Lucas think that the film ended up being far more dark than they intended, but that is one of the things that make it such a great addition to the Indiana Jones story. It didn't pull punches and wasn't afraid.
"Headhunters" and firey lava pits. Dark, but also mythical awesomeness to any kid.
This is the sort of thing that has me so excited to see the bits of sci-fi injected into Crystal Skull.
Posted at 6:14AM on May 24th 2008 by Weyland Yutani
9. "There's no racial overtones there either, as he obviously respects Indian culture."
+++++
Well, depicting Indians as people who eat monkey brains and snakes was pretty disgusting and racist, and I bet in retrospect Spielberg regrets doing that. A more bizarre, orientalist, demented vision it might be difficult to find.
And Richard saying it falls into 'White Mans Burden' category is also partially true. The imaginative landscape of the movie is rooted in colonial British fantasies, in which the bad Indians, the restless natives, are rescued (at the end) by the benign sharpshooters of the local British regiment. Who are of course in India for no other reason than to deal with monkey-brain eating darkies who tear hearts out of each other and do horrible voodoo, and were not there to exploit the people and thieve the resources of the land.
Still fun to watch though.
Posted at 7:15AM on May 21st 2008 by Jay
10. Rose colored glasses much? Me and a group of me friends tried to watch the trilogy and things just fell apart with doom. It is so absurd and with the constant annoyance of Kate Capshaw's character. And the dance number opening, Indy and the poison/antidote my god how cheesy can you get. Its like they made a parody of Raiders.
11. @Eric H: I couldn't agree more.
Posted at 10:26AM on May 21st 2008 by GL
12. I think the trick is not to take it so seriously. The first one is by far my favorite, and I like the last one as well, but the second one, I think is the most fun--and it is so because it's so absurd, and because you do have to put up with Willie Scott's inane shrieking throughout the movie. Isn't it meant to take place before Raiders of the Lost Ark? Chronologically, I mean? I dunno, the Indy in Raiders looks more worn in and adjusted to his adventures--maybe he's toned down and it feels more real because of all the ridiclousness of the adventure with Willie Scott-I dunno, I'm rambling, but I think that Temple of Doom enhances the other movies, rather than detract from the trilogy as a whole.
Posted at 10:32AM on May 21st 2008 by Denise
13. >>>but I think that Temple of Doom enhances the other movies, rather than detract from the trilogy as a whole.
I agree (obviously), and think that's an important point.
Posted at 10:45AM on May 21st 2008 by Eugene Novikov
14. Temple is my favorite. It may not be the best, but it's the most fun and the one I've seen the most. To each his own, I guess...
Posted at 12:02PM on May 21st 2008 by Jason Chapa
15. While yes, we get to see Indy get annoyed at Willie with us, it's not exactly fun. It's more like finding out your neighbor has cancer almost immediately after you get diagnosed with it. Yeah, you can have sympathy for each other, but it doesn't change how much things suck.
Further, the film never gets annoyed with Willie; she never gets what's coming to her. No death a quarter way through, unfortunately. Indy never leaves her in the jungle to die. An elephant never sits on her.
I found it hard to get caught up in the drama of the plot (I was wearing Air Jordan's at the time I viewed it, so I was pretty comfortable with sweatshops), the setting wasn't very impressive (perhaps more in the cinematography, but the rural parts of India chosen aren't much to look at, they just seemed dirty and dusty; ill-suited for an adventure movie and fall flat compared to many other parts of India).
Still an entertaining movie, still a better-than-average movie, but it's nothing spectacular. Nothing completely memorable.
And I don't think you meant sarcasm for "there are about to be two dead people in here." No sarcasm there - he completely meant what he was saying, haha.
Posted at 1:34PM on May 21st 2008 by MosquitoControl
16. Finally, I'm glad to see someone else defend Temple of Doom. I hadn't watched it for years, and only heard that it was "the bad one." I just watched it again last weekend - it has it's problems, but it's still a blast. I LOVE the bridge sequence.
My defense is over on Fancast:
http://bigpicture.fancast.com/2008/05/defending_temple_of_doom.html
Posted at 2:27PM on May 21st 2008 by FancastAndy
17. Ugh! This movie was awful. Such a disappointing second effort after the wonderful "Raiders of the Lost Ark." From the lackluster musical opening to the eyeball soup to cliche characters and "white man's burden" storyline, I can only say thank God for the great "Crusade" as a follow-up to restore faith in this series. Even "Crystal Skull" with its mixed reviews can't be as bad as "Temple"! The villains are dopey and canned (Belloq from "Raiders" is more intimidating than all of the villains in "Temple" put together!), there's almost no spark between Indy and Willie (compared to Indy and Marion), and that kid sidekick (who was much better in "The Goonies"!) is so ANNOYING! To this day, I still can't watch this movie again no matter how hard I try.
Posted at 7:37AM on May 22nd 2008 by Benjy
18. Great Review, and written by someone who obviously "get's it" what Temple of Doom is all about. Definitely the most exciting of all the Indiana Jones movies. The opening scene and the ending climax are equally good. Thats a rare feat in itself.
Posted at 1:00AM on May 26th 2008 by Mike
1. My fave of the series. Yeah, I said it. It's the most fun.
Posted at 9:16PM on May 20th 2008 by Cesaria (MKW:2621-2994-1376)