why i am consistently disappointed by indiana jones and the temple of doom

i recently just re-watched all the 'indiana jones' movies for the umpteenth time, mainly just to have something on in the background while tackling a huge pile of homework. i wondered vaguely why i had seen 'raiders of the lost ark' so many more times than the rest of the movies until i was about 15 minutes into 'temple of doom.' i've seen 'raiders' a zillion times because it's my favorite, but i've only seen 'temple of doom' a handful of times because it's awful. i had forgotten just how awful it was until i found myself trying to refrain from fast-forwarding through the entire movie.

before i talk about why it's a failure of a standalone film, i first have to address the cinematic elephant in the room whenever one watches 'temple of doom:' it's not 'raiders of the lost ark.' spielberg and lucas really had something with 'raiders,' obviously. it warranted a sequel, even just at the beginnings of the blockbuster era when hollywood hadn't really figured out just what a gold mine sequels are.

now, the indiana jones series has a clear and entirely functional formula: take one part harrison ford and one part harrison ford's shirtless torso. add some universally appealing object wanted by two parties: indiana jones and the bad guys, preferably led by a creepy foreign henchman. introduce a hot girl into the mix, going heavy on the 'damsel in distress' element. garnish with a few quotable lines, end with a bang and bam! you've got four movies.

'raiders of the lost ark' made this formula shine. it had the ark of the covenant. it had multiple bad guys; bellach, indy's french nemesis, and the asian dude who burned the coveted headpiece into his hand and had me thoroughly skeeved out during the entire movie. it had karen allen, the daughter of indy's old teacher who had the alcohol tolerance of an irish steel worker but still managed to get captured consistently. it had quotes like "why'd it have to be snakes?" and "it's not the years, honey, it's the mileage." it ended with the good guys winning and the bad guys dying, and everyone loved it.

'temple of doom' followed this formula to a t, so why wasn't it anywhere near as good? harrison ford was shirtless more often than not, there was that disgusting face-painted guy of whichever indigenous tribe that was meant to be, there was that stone everyone wanted, it even had kate capshaw, who made most damsels in distress look like xena: warrior princess. it had that cute little kid who said things like "he's not crazy, he's nuts!" all ended happily after a ridiculous bridge stunt, so why does everyone not love it?

i have two theories. one of them is that 'temple of doom' followed the formula well enough, but all the elements were half-assed on their own. once they were all put together into one great formula, all we got was epic half-assery, if you'll pardon the oxymoron. think about it: there was never one really well-defined bad guy for us to focus our energy on despising. the relic everyone wanted was a glorified rock, and- actually, it wasn't really glorified at all, it was just a rock. who wants to cheer on indiana jones as he participates in a creepy ritual, escapes through a rock mine run by children and risks getting eaten by crocodiles, all to reclaim a rock? then there's the matter of the girl, who took 'damsel in distress' a little too far, sniveling and whining her way into indy's heart. adherence to the formula? check. quality adherence? not so much.

my other theory about why 'temple of doom' seems terrible relies on the idea of expectation. 'raiders' was a truly great movie, so i was expecting spielberg and lucas to do it again. it wasn't an unreasonable expectation, given these two cinematic greats; i mean, look at the first three 'star wars' movies. alas, 'temple of doom' didn't deliver on my hopes of what it could have been. without this expectation, i might feel differently. if i had seen 'temple of doom' first, i might have liked it enough, then been positively blown away by 'radiers of the lost ark.'

i'm sure there's an element of the first theory in the mix, and i hate to give too much credit to the expectation theory (what if 'raiders' was only good because no one expected anything of it?) but we can take the 'expectation' theory to the next level with indiana's third installment, 'the last crusade.' it certainly wasn't on par with 'raiders,' but 'the last crusade' is a decent movie in its own right. it has a quest for the holy grail, double-agent nazis and best of all, sean connery. it has all that "don't call me 'junior'" stuff, and it shows us how indy got his start. the best part about this movie, though, is it's not 'temple of doom.'

then, of course, we have 'kingdom of the crystal skull,' which could have been pretty awesome, if the entire movie-going public hadn't been expecting it to be more awesome than it actually was. with advancement of special effects technology, the return of karen allen, the casting of shia labeouf and a substantial amount of the "absence makes the heart grow fonder" effect, loyal audiences expected way too much and were consequently disappointed. people who hadn't seen any of the other movies (read: the 15 and under demographic, the 'living under a rock' demographic) liked it enough because as a standalone movie, it was actually okay.

it's the expectation factor. that's why i am consistently disappointed by 'indiana jones and the temple of doom.'