Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

tstudstrup This movie has not aged well. The temple of doom is almost as bad as Kingdom of the crystal scull. Both movies are written by George Lucas so that explains why they both suck. Unlike the hysterical american parents in the 1980's (who by bitching about the violence helped create the awful PG13 rating) I have no problem with the said violence in the movie. And that violence is really just that one scene with the heart and the man bing burned alive which are lousy special effects and not nearly as brutal as the nazis being killed at the end of the first movieWhat I do have a problem with is the childish tone of the film, where every situation has to be made comical by by the annoying Willie Scott played by the unattractive ugly Kate Capshaw. Luckily she stopped acting a few years afte,r as she didnt have to work, being married to the very rich Spielberg. And the equally annoying Short Round played by Jonathan Ke Quan. And he's not the only annoying kid in this movie. There is also the little maharaja played by Raj Singh. And all of the child slaves. Too many annoying kids in one movie. Despite this movie, having a reputation as being this franchises version of The Empire strikes back and the darkest movie, it comes off as silly and boring. The entire opening sequence in the nightclub is annoying and lame comedy unlike the powerful opening in the original movie. The movie never really gets good. The bridge scene is the only scene worth watching in the entire movie. The special effects are terrible even for 1984. From horrible obvious matte paintings in several scenes to the most fake looking plane crash I have ever seen to the fake looking scene of a heart litterally ripped from a mans chest to obvious puppets and miniatures in the miniwaggon chase scenes, to a dummy standing in for Ford in a fight scene, this movie comes off as cheap despite a budget of 28 million dollars. Unlike the first much superior and much more expensive looking movie, that had a much smaller budget, almost the entire film was shot in California despite the story taking place in India. The Terminator from the same year had, for the most part, better special effects despite a budget of only 6 million dollars. Its like Spielberg and Lucas were trying to save money on the sequel, by making such shitty special effects. The special effects of the original movie were much better and more creatively made. Its like they just didnt care in the sequel. I get that this movie is 34 years old and it was long before CGI, but Ive always preferred practical effects. However CGI, while not making the movie better, would have at least made the actionscenes and the violence more convincing. However too much CGI can be a bad thing, which the awful fourth movie proves in spades. For kids being born in the 90's or around 2000, long after this movie came out it will look like the utter shit that it is. To them I can only say: do not watch this. People who used to love this movie and see it on bluray on a 4K tv, for the first time, will hate it just as much, because the UHD definition makes the speical effects look so bad. The only reason I'm even giving this crap one star, is because 0 stars are not possible on imdb.

llandwehr-95367 The 1980's was a premier decade for vapid nonsense wrapped up in great makeup, and period costumes plus shoukder pads, but not much else when jt came to blockbusters at the cinema. The reaction to this shallow end of the pool crap explains where the cohen brothers, jim jarnusch, david lynch, kevin smith and quentin tarrantino among others got their moxie from. Kate Capshaw ruined this movie along with countless other character stereotypes that had long before been dismissed as tired and offensive in the 1930's.by anyone who was paying attention. But then again the 80's seem to have been Speilberg's 'take the money and run decade. This is an awful movie from start to finish and goes a long way to describe an era of excess in all things bright and shiny and not quite right for all the gloss. Those of you not born yet, welcome to your analog decade and presidency.

wyndorfp This movie was a horrible disappointing follow up to the first movie. Viewed in 1984 and now 14 years later it is one of the most epic fails of sequels. In 1984 I was pretty sure it stunk in 2018 I'm one thousand percent sure it stinks. Spielberg failed this one and I'm sure he would agree.

Ian Kane This movie was obviously made to be a pulse-pounding roller coaster ride from beginning to end. While Temple Of Doom doubles down on thrills and chills effectively, it really cuts into the writing and character development because it doesn't stop for a breath too often. Short Round and Willy have their moments, but they mostly just act like annoying sidekicks. Also, the gross-out parts of the movie feel really hamfisted.It's doesn't strike a perfect balance of faster and slower moments like Raiders did, but if you're looking for constant action; Indy's 2nd flick is a decent choice.Final Score: 63/100 (Copper Medal)