MovieChat Forums > Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Discussion > No way this is better than Temple

No way this is better than Temple

posted 7 years ago by illnagas (457)
26 replies | jump to latest

They try way too hard to force slapstick comedy into every scene they can. They even squash Connerys best chance to actually act with a dopey comedic bit where Indy survived the tank crash.

The Marcus character is ridiculously stupid he’s lucky to live at all. And most of all he’s just not funny.

Some of the action looks choreographed by children. No one expects realism but they go way too far.

Even from a technical viewpoint the movie is questionable. Some of the cinematography is odd because the lighting is so obviously unnatural.

A couple good bits at the beginning and end but otherwise pure silliness

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 7 years ago

That you again, Ultimatehippo? We've already been through this ad nauseam. The exact opposite of what you say is true, as Temple is demonstrably the most slapstick heavy of the Jones films, and the one most obviously aimed at children.

Funny how you say "a couple good bits at the beginning" - that's where most of the slapstick was, in Crusade. In Temple, however, the slapstick was always there.

[–] HAL 9010 (907) 7 years ago

In Raiders too.

ex-Friend is littered with a million arrows
Swing-rope to short and he lands in river
Running from the Hovitos over the field
Snakes, I hate Snakes
etc etc etc... all within the first couple of minutes. Luv em all. Some of the most iconic moments are such "slap stick humor" bits, like the wielding swords man, for example.

I will say though that of the three, "Last" has a few misses I could havde done without, like; "the pen is mightier than the sword" or when Jones Sr sits on a chair to have a solution present itself.... those two did not work on me.

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 7 years ago

The three things I don't like with Crusade is the fact that they 1) turned Marcus into comic relief, 2) the same for Sallah and 3) the chair and the secret stairwell. Well, I'll add to that the following scene:

Marcus: "How does one get off this thing?"
[Indy accidentally knocks Marcus off the tank]
Henry: "Where's Marcus?" [with Marcus lying on his back in the background, legs in the air]

That was too goofy. I even thought so when I watched it as a 12-year old. But I feel that in the framework of Marcus already established as comic relief (more's the pity), "the pen is mightier than the sword" does work in that context.

[–] HAL 9010 (907) 7 years ago

Marcus was too silly and goofy for my taste as well. A shame as he is wonderful in Raiders. I get they needed him to be out of his element and I enjoyed when he was walking totally lost asking anyone if they may speak ancient Greek.... and I can even go as far as to say that the "pen is mightier than the sword" line works on paper. But not executed on film. Or at least not how they did it. Both Marcus and Jones Sr. was in a dire situation then and the way this joke was delivered was cringe-worthy imo, even Jones Sr. seemed to think so...

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 7 years ago

I think it was meant to be that way.

M: "Henry, the pen..."
H: "What?"
(Henry, and people watching, expect there to be something of importance in connection with the pen)
M: "But don't you see, the pen is mightier than the sword!"
(Henry cringes as he realises Marcus distracted him just to deliver a bad pun)

Henry takes the situation seriously, whereas Marcus never seems to grasp the gravity.

[–] illnagas (457) 7 years ago

Your list clearly demonstrates that you have little grasp of slap stick humor, if at all.

[–] HAL 9010 (907) 7 years ago

swing rope too short is not?

A pet snake Reggie on the plane is not?

Running over a field and then to be revealed to be chased be hundreds running after him like Benny Hill is not ?

His friend standing looking scared to be revealed to have like a gazillion arrows in his back, is not?

And making a analog reference to Mikey Mouse is?

Or having Indy also look over the cliff of a fallen tank is?

Sure, none of them are pie in your face level moments (in Raiders or Crusade), but still slap stick or least silly-ish.... I like em all, I am just saying that Crusade is not much different from the others.

I agree though that Marcus is too silly especially when compared to his version in Raiders. I can see they needed him to be out of his element, but they do it a tad too much.

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 7 years ago

And making a analog reference to Mikey Mouse is?

I honestly don't get what's so wrong with the Mickey Mouse quote. That is not the main thing. As we all know, the original line had Jesse Owens in place of Mickey Mouse. Now, if Jesse Owens had been kept, the humour would have been exactly the same. The punch line in that scene is the punch itself. It is very similar to the bit in Raiders where Indy is trying to put on a too small German uniform. Along comes an officer and berates him for napping, for being unkempt, smelly and not wearing his uniform properly. At first Indy tries to accommodate the officer by combing his hair, straightening his uniform, until he decides "screw it" and knocks the officer out. Same thing in the "Mickey Mouse" scene which UltimateHippo is so fanatically opposed to for no good reason: Indy tries to pass himself off as a Scottish nobleman visiting, the butler doesn't buy it, and Indy decides "screw it" and knocks him out. The Mickey Mouse line is perfectly topical for the time. There was also a Marx brothers reference by Henry Sr. later on, but no one seems to take offence at that...

And while that scene does sort of qualify as slap stick humour, the Mickey Mouse mention does not. Slapstick is physical humour. Indy looking over the cliff doesn't qualify either, for that matter. While the joke in that case was non-verbal, not all non-verbal humour is physical humour.

[–] HAL 9010 (907) 7 years ago

Agree 100%

[–] illnagas (457) 7 years ago

not all humor is slapstick humor. Crusade took it way further than the others. You're ignoring the moment that the humor occurs in and how much it interrupts the action.

[–] HAL 9010 (907) 7 years ago

I am not ignoring this. I am though respectfully disagreeing when you say much interrupt (or disrupt) the storytelling and/or action more so than in the others... except perhaps Silly Markus in one or two examples.

[–] TheUltimateHippo (2250) 7 years ago

Um that wasn't me, you know it is entirely possible that other people don't love Last Crusade.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

"Temple is demonstrably the most slapstick heavy of the Jones films, and the one most obviously aimed at children."

Hmm... I don't feel that way, Temple was pretty dark actually.

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 7 years ago

What was dark about it? The disgusting food? The bugs? The human sacrifice? The enslaved children? All elements which children eat up like candy. Kids love disgusting things, and they love danger. Adventures aimed at children do precisely what Temple does, and place children in harm's way. And they also tend to do what Temple does, and ensure that not only is there a happy ending, but there is plenty of humour throughout to relieve tension. Dark movies to not give you relief.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Well I was talking more about the tone, but yeah now that you put it that way I never thought about that! :o

Nevertheless, every Indiana Jones movies have an happy ending..

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 7 years ago

True, although the ending of Raiders was also frustrating (with the ark being locked away, maybe never to be seen again), and in Crusade the grail was lost, and Indy's love interest died (even though she was working for the Nazis). So Temple was the only one where they completely accomplished what they set out to do.

[–] illnagas (457) 7 years ago

Yeah kids love monkey brains and hearts being ripped out of a living mans chest. Every kids movie has that. You must be the dunce of this board

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 7 years ago

Yeah kids love monkey brains and hearts being ripped out of a living mans chest. Every kids movie has that. You must be the dunce of this board

Weren't you ever a kid yourself? I first saw Temple when I was 9 or 10, and I loved it. The gross food, the bugs, the human sacrifice... "coool!" That's what boys are like. Kids love a good scare, they love gore, they love to have their fear centres touched. If you didn't, you might have been unusually timid.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 7 years ago

You're correct that Temple is the one that most appeals to kids. When I was a kid, Temple was easily my favorite. Hands down.

Now, as an adult it is my least favorite. Still a fine Indy film, but the lesser of the three.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Temple of Doom is my personal favorite but people tend to enjoy that one less.

But I's say that Last Crusade is a lot of fun too. Some of the moments between Indiana Jones and his father are simply priceless.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

...boring conversation anyway

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7977) 7 years ago

Frankly I don't like Temple of Doom and consider both Raiders and Last Crusade to be better than it.

[–] ComputerBlue (330) 7 years ago

Temple is my favorite and I consider this to be the weakest of the original trilogy, but it's still a great flick.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 7 years ago

ToD did have many goofy parts but I feel that TLC had far more. Raiders did have lots of comedy but the comedy was always 2nd chair to the very serious plot line. ToD started putting the comedy a little too far up the ladder of priority. TLC went too far to the point of being a comedy with lots of action. TLC was so zany that it couldn't even keep it's pants on for the guardian of the Grail. The fact that they went for the laugh at that solemn moment is all the information you need to prove that TLC was the worst of the three.

Same thing happens all the time. You get the same crew back to make a sequel and everyone wants to "recapture the """fun""" and they go too far. A good example is the Lethal Weapon movies.

I reject the nonsense about "a short rope" and "I hate snakes" etc being slap stick. Levity fits action. A slide whistle does not.

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 7 years ago

Very well said, I will fully admit that in TOD they went a little too far with Willie and Short Round's comic relief, but even then the adventure was always the main focus. In TLC the adventure wasn't the main focus, the plot didn't even really matter, it was more of an Indiana Jones spoof where the focus was the humor (much like Monty Python except Monty Python was actually funny).

[–] illnagas (457) 7 years ago

Agreed on many points.

Early in the series, Spielberg had a knack for weaving humor into the action without going too far. Although I like ToD I’d admit they amped up the schtick compared to Raiders. I think the 80s was rife with “sequelitus” where they crammed in more jokes into sequels. Mad max beyond thunderdome also comes to mind.
That said ToD never let the gags take over. TLC was just so damned shmaltzy I keep rolling my eyes. It’s like I can see how TLC transitioned into the all out crapfest of Crystal Skull years later.