in that it's a real outlier. Like Temple it embraces the occult -- a theme no Bond film before or since has explored-- and does so in a weird, goofy, broad, all-around bonkers way that makes for a fun ride.
No, it's not the best of the series. But, it is a refreshing departure from the typical Bond formula.
You mean temple of doom is the live and let die of the Indiana Jones franchise. Live and let die came out 11 years earlier
shareTrue, though I would still call Live and Let Die the Temple of Doom of its franchise rather than the other way around because Temple is more cherished and singled out for being such a departure whereas Live and Let Die, unfortunately, isn't.
shareIt didn't have to be that way though, Temple of Doom wouldn't have been the outlier if Spielberg hadn't pussed out and made a Raiders retread in 1989
shareI do love though the chemistry between Ford and Connery; in my estimation it makes up somewhat for the less-than-captivating story.
It's a shame they didn't go with Lucas's idea of making the third Indy installment about a haunted house (even if that would have been somewhat reminiscent of Doom's Pankot Palace).
Uhhhh what chemistry? Listening to those two talk to each other was like banging my head in with a hammer.
Yeah Last Crusade is like The Force Awakens of the Indiana Jones franchise, they didn't want to take any risks so they just recycled the better of the previous two attempts but sucked out all of the fun and excitement from it.
I'll have to respectfully disagree.
Comparing Crusade to Awakens is a good one; neither is, for the most part, willing to offer the audience anything more than a breezy, safe ride. But, I must admit, Awakens and Crusade are okay in my book. They're pleasent enough diversions on a Sunday afternoon.
I totally disagree with you, Awakens and Last Crusade are painful for me to sit through, two of the worst movies I've ever seen.
share