Brett (Maverick) Lambert: Re. Ebert's review of "ToD."

Posted by ROB T. from 162.10.138.197 on November 09, 1999 at 02:15:52:

I reread Ebert's review of "Temple of Doom" like you suggested. I agree that he backs up his opinion vigorously. I just disagree with his conclusions. Some of the things he liked about "ToD" are some of the very things I disliked about it.
He liked the "impregnable fortress impregnated" idea and I feel this has been done better in countless other films. Even he agreed that most of "ToD" is lifted from other movies (like the minecar chase coming from "The General"). I realize that "Raiders" did the exact same thing in copying from past films. The difference, I think, is that "Raiders" copied from bad movies and did it right. "Temple" copies from movies that already succeeded at doing what "Temple" does.
Ebert also didn't say anything at all about the performances in "Temple." No mention of being impressed with Short Round or Willie or Mola Ram. He seemed to give the movie four stars based on nothing more than being stunned by the action sequences. This is not enough for me.
Leonard Maltin gave "Temple" two stars and I feel this is a lot closer to what the movie deserves. I don't hate "Temple of Doom" but it doesn't begin to compare to "Raiders" and I'm not the only one who feels that way. The American Film Institute lists "Raiders" as one of the 100 best movies of all time. It was also nominated for an Oscar for best picture and should have won over "Chariots of Fire."
"Temple of Doom" got mostly mediocre reviews and most fans feel it is the weakest of the series. I'd bet that even Lucas, Spielberg and Ford feel that the other two Indy films are better.
In fact, with the exception of a handful of people on this forum, almost everyone who has seen the three films recognizes that "Temple of Doom" is a lesser film.
As far as backing up my opinion like Roger Ebert did, I'm linking a post I put up a few weeks ago that lists all the reasons I feel "Raiders" is better than "Temple of Doom" or "Last Crusade."
I really hope that when Indy IV comes out that it can be universally regarded as the best of the four films.

"Raiders" all the way!!!

Follow Ups:

I really think it will be impossible to top Raiders Abner 07:43:21 11/09/99 (1)
- I don't think they can top "Raiders" either, I just want them to give it a sincere try. (NM) ROB T. 21:47:02 11/09/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: I reread Ebert's review of "Temple of Doom" like you suggested. I agree that he backs up his opinion vigorously. I just disagree with his conclusions. Some of the things he liked about "ToD" are some of the very things I disliked about it.
: He liked the "impregnable fortress impregnated" idea and I feel this has been done better in countless other films. Even he agreed that most of "ToD" is lifted from other movies (like the minecar chase coming from "The General"). I realize that "Raiders" did the exact same thing in copying from past films. The difference, I think, is that "Raiders" copied from bad movies and did it right. "Temple" copies from movies that already succeeded at doing what "Temple" does.
: Ebert also didn't say anything at all about the performances in "Temple." No mention of being impressed with Short Round or Willie or Mola Ram. He seemed to give the movie four stars based on nothing more than being stunned by the action sequences. This is not enough for me.
: Leonard Maltin gave "Temple" two stars and I feel this is a lot closer to what the movie deserves. I don't hate "Temple of Doom" but it doesn't begin to compare to "Raiders" and I'm not the only one who feels that way. The American Film Institute lists "Raiders" as one of the 100 best movies of all time. It was also nominated for an Oscar for best picture and should have won over "Chariots of Fire."
: "Temple of Doom" got mostly mediocre reviews and most fans feel it is the weakest of the series. I'd bet that even Lucas, Spielberg and Ford feel that the other two Indy films are better.
: In fact, with the exception of a handful of people on this forum, almost everyone who has seen the three films recognizes that "Temple of Doom" is a lesser film.
: As far as backing up my opinion like Roger Ebert did, I'm linking a post I put up a few weeks ago that lists all the reasons I feel "Raiders" is better than "Temple of Doom" or "Last Crusade."
: I really hope that when Indy IV comes out that it can be universally regarded as the best of the four films.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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