Posted by Steve McCrary from spider-te012.proxy.aol.com on July 18, 1998 at 16:44:10:
In Reply to: Re: Temple Of Doom better than Crusade posted by Kapro on July 17, 1998 at 05:10:38:
: : : I prefer Temple Of Doom because it is different. Crusade is a carbon copy of raiders, albeit with obvious changes.
: : : I do like the dark tone of Temple Of Doom and actually feeling that Indy is in a dangerous situation.
: : I agree, but I think that there is no better. Raiders and Crusade, in my opinion, are perfect movies. The only reason Temple isn't perfect is because of Kate Kapshaw's performance.
: : Mack
: I m not agree with Mack,because,in my opinion, Kate' s performance is better than other indy's women performance.Anyway,I prefer Last Crusade.In the fourth movie , I hope there will be Willie again.
Temple of Doom fell short of the greatness it could have had. I mean, the plotline was ok, but Indiana Jones isn't Indiana Jones without Marcus Brody and/or Henry Jones. Last Crusade worked much better. I do not hop Willie returns, because she was a mega wimp. Marion ruled, because she could actually stand up to Nazis, which Temple of Doom failed to put in (and Indy isn't indy without Nazi fighting). Marion might not show up in Indy 4 anyway, cause, well, the actor doesn't look that good right now.
To sum this up is that Temple of Doom was ok, but definitely not the caliber of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
And Last Crusade is very original, not a rehash of Raiders. It's totally different.
Post a Followup: