In 1935, Indiana Jones arrives in India, still part of the British Empire, and is asked to find a mystical stone. He then stumbles upon a secret cult committing enslavement and human sacrifices in the catacombs of an ancient palace.
I’ve never enjoyed Temple of Doom. It’s too scary. The food is even terrifying. Hearts are ripped from people’s chests. People are burned alive. All of that, and it’s rated PG. It’s no wonder PG-13 was created because of this movie. On top of all of that, Indiana, Harrison Ford, is somehow even a bigger misogynist than in Raiders.
Watching this movie after the Me Too movement has not been eye-opening, but certainly uncomfortable. I never liked how women were treated in the film, but I just accepted it. Now it actively pisses me off. Indy’s treatment of Willie, Kate Capshaw, was disgusting. He repeatedly dismissed her, even though he literally dragged her with him. She has a right to complain. Willie had been singing at her club, and all of a sudden she’s in a jungle surrounded by a foreign nature. Naturally, she’s scared, and Indy just laughs at her and rolls his eyes. Women, amirite?
Temple of Doom is technically a prequel, which explains why I don’t like it. I tend to hate prequels. There’s no explanation for why it happens before Raiders. Indy is a bit more mercenary, looking for only fame and glory. He starts off willing to ignore the plight of an entire village because he doesn’t believe them. I guess he hadn’t yet been shown that the supernatural was alive and well in his world.
Willie was a female version of Indy, but he’d never acknowledge it. They were both the top of the careers and complete narcissists. So sure of how amazing they are and only capable of the barest minimum of self-reflection. That was at least amusing to watch.
Even harder to look past than the sexism is the blatant racism in the film. It’s just soooo bad. You’ve got the heavy-handed Indian racism and the casual racism with Short Round, Ke Huy Quan. They covered as many bases as they could with Temple of Doom and racism. I refuse to allow the whole ‘it was a different time’ excuse to be used either. Fuck that noise. The Indian government actually told them they didn’t like several things in the script, and instead of changing them, they changed location. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Also, if anyone ever complains about how unrealistic certain scenes in Crystal Skull are, just point them to the beginning of Temple of Doom. They fall out of a plane in a life raft onto a snowy mountain. Ride down the mountain at breakneck speeds and then fall off a cliff into a raging river. It’s beyond ridiculous, which is fine for the type of film. My issue is more with people complaining about Crystal Skull.
I own Temple of Doom in a boxset, and I’m a completionist, or otherwise, I’d be fine not owning it. It’s definitely not a movie I feel the need to re-watch at frequent intervals. Normally, it’s not until I forget just how bad it is that I re-watch it.
A mousy romance novelist sets off for Colombia to ransom her kidnapped sister, and soon finds herself in the middle of a dangerous adventure hunting for treasure with a mercenary rogue.
I love adventure movies, and Romancing the Stone ticks all of my boxes. Not only is it an adventure, but it also includes romance, and it does it well. How often can you say that? Never, that’s how often. I wonder if it’s because a woman wrote it? Sadly, Diane Thomas was killed in a drunk driving incident, and we never got to see other movies from her. Apparently, she was working with Spielberg on some things at the time too. That’s two female writers in the 80s, attached to movies I love, that died…
Reviewers have compared Romancing the Stone to Indiana Jones, and I don’t see it. Apart from the fact that they’re both adventure movies, they don’t share anything else. Joan Wilder, Kathleen Turner, is definitely the main character. I don’t care what Michael Douglas thinks. Joan was the main one, and he was her sidekick.
They weren’t fighting Nazis. They were searching for treasure with a treasure map. Archeology played no part. Seriously, other than the adventure aspect, how is this like Indiana Jones? It feels like reviewers getting all pissy cause it was female-led.
Two conspiracies in one post, nice!
And now it’s time for Random Facts from the Wikipedia Article!
-Sylvester Stallone was considered for the role of Jack Colton. Thank goodness that didn’t happen, I can only imagine how he would have demanded things be changed, plus he’s not good with romance.
-Robert Zemeckis almost didn’t get to make it because 20th Century Fox had no faith in him after two failures. It was because of the success of Romancing the Stone that he could go on and make Back to the Future.
And that’s the end of another edition of Random Facts from the Wikipedia Article!
There weren’t many random facts this time. The film didn’t have much drama going on with it, so that’s nice.
I wish more movies like this were being made—films like this and tv shows like The Librarians. I’m hoping that because of everything that’s going on in the world, entertainment will start to veer toward a lighter fare. Bridgerton was wildly successful, proving that people want happy, predictable media right now. Please, please bring back my adventure movies. The only upcoming one I’m aware of right now is Uncharted with Tom Holland, and considering it’s based on a video game, I do not have high hopes.
I’ve written a whole long blog post about my favorite Adventure movies and my feelings on them, so there isn’t much else to say about Romancing the Stone.
I have, what I’m finding to be, a very strict definition of adventure movies. It follows the Wikipedia definition pretty closely, but apparently, that is not the definition other people seem to use; at least people that write lists and post them on the internet.
“Adventure films are a genre of film whose plots feature elements of travel. They typically involve protagonists who must leave their home or place of comfort and go to faraway lands to fulfill a goal. Settings play an important role in Adventure films, sometimes as big as the characters themselves.“
“Main plot elements include quests for lost continents and exotic setting; struggles and situations that confront the main characters, the creation of empires, characters embarking on treasure and heroic journeys, travels, explorations, quests and searches for the unknown usually also having to overcome an adversary.Adventure films are often set in a period background and may include adapted stories of historical or fictional adventure heroes within the historical context. Kings, battles, rebellion, or piracy are commonly seen. Adventure films may also be combined with other movie genres such as action, animation, comedy, drama, fantasy, science fiction, family, horror, or war.“
The ending of the definition is where my opinion diverges, slightly. Adventure movies can, of course, be combined with other genres, but too often on these lists, adventure is the subgenre and has very little to do with the main parts of the movie. When I’m looking for an adventure movie, I want that to be the focus. Things get a bit sticky with films like Star Wars. It’s clearly sci-fi, but it’s also fantasy and adventure. It’s one of those rare movies that straddle genres very well.
Superhero movies will not be on my list. At least none I’ve seen as of September 2020. In my opinion, superhero movies have become their own separate genre. They have elements of action, sci-fi, fantasy, and adventure. The focus, though, is the superhero and all the superhero stuff. This is not what I’m looking for when it comes to an adventure movie.
Most action movies will not be on my list. If the purpose of the movie is to see people get beat up and shit blown up, for me, that’s action, not adventure. John Wick and The Raid are action. Sure, I could see how someone could argue they’re adventure, but, again, that’s not what I’m looking for in an adventure film.
*This definition is completely subjective and as the list grows longer will probably end up making no sense at all.
I think part of the reason I enjoy adventure movies is that unlike action, they often include female characters in more than a token role. Evie in The Mummy is a driving force in the story. Buttercup tries to save her true love and speaks up against the man in control of her in The Princess Bride. It’s Joan’s adventure that we go on in Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. Princess Leia, Abigail Chase, Elizabeth Swann, Yvaine, and Lamia have large parts in each of their movies. They each may not be the lead of their films, but their actions matter to the story.
Now that’s cleared up, here are the adventure movies I enjoy the most, listed alphabetically. More will be added as I remember them or watch them.
The Goonies is a perfect example of an adventure film. You’ve got a ragtag crew of kids (goonies) that are about to lose their homes until they find a treasure map. Excitement ensues as they fight their way to the treasure at the end.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is about a man who is taken from Earth and forced to make his way through the galaxy with people he thought he knew. His initial goal is just to survive in his new environment, but it turns into a quest to find the answer to the ultimate question. It has a sci-fi setting and is a comedy, but the main purpose of the movie is Arthur’s adventure.
The Indiana Jones movies are my definition of adventure film. Indiana is an adventurer seeking treasures that belong in museums. Raiders of the Last Arkis easily the best. Temple of Doom still freaks me out a bit. Last Crusade has Sean Connery and is a bit of a rehash of Raiders, but I still prefer it to Temple of Doom. I actually don’t hate Kingdom of the Crystal Skull but I didn’t include a picture because the gallery looked weird on WordPress when I uploaded it.
The Mummy and The Mummy Returns are once again very similar to the Indiana Jones movies. However, this time the female character has agency and an integral part to the story. Evie makes these movies, she has a larger role than O’Connell. She’s amazing. Also, everyone in this movie is gorgeous.
National Treasureand National Treasure: Book of Secrets have a team of people searching all over the country for treasure. They are being chased by bad guys and there’s a little bit of romance. It doesn’t have a historical setting, but it does have historical elements.
The Princess Bride has fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, true love, and miracles. You can’t get more adventure than that, now can you?
Romancing the Stone and The Jewel of the Nile are two adventure movies that follow Joan Wilder, a super successful romance writer, and Jack Colton a man who just wants to buy a boat. They travel through treacherous terrain while being chased by a corrupt military figure, in order to save her sister. The sequel isn’t as good, but I enjoy it none the less.
Stardusthas a lot of fantasy elements and I debated including it on my list. It’s one of my favorite movies, but is it more adventure than fantasy? I decided to go with yes. It has pirates. It has a young man on a heroic journey to find treasure for his love. The fantasy setting plays a roll, but the adventure story is what really drives the movie. It hits all the marks I love most about adventure films, but I could just be clouded by my love.
Star Wars just might be the most epic adventure story of all time. These seven movies are a saga that has yet to be surpassed. I know there are a lot of people that hate the prequels, but they came out when I was just young enough to attach some nostalgia. So apart from Clone Wars I enjoy them all. I also included Rogue One because it is the only new movie in the series that I have loved. It is one of my favorite movies, not only in the series, but period.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life have action elements, but Lara’s quest for ancient artifacts trumps that, in my opinion. Plus, I love being able to include female led adventure films. That being said, I wouldn’t call these favorites. I enjoy them and watch them when I’m not feeling strongly about anything, but there are many ways in which they could be better. I have not yet watched the newest, if I like it I’ll definitely add it.
Tomorrowlandis another one of my favorite movies. This time, though, I’m pretty sure there’s no question of it’s adventure film status. Yes there are sci-fi elements, but the movie takes part mostly in the real world. You have a young woman searching for Tomorrowland, then trying to save the world. She’s taken out of her comfort zone on a quest for an artifact.
Jeff and Kitty Katt-Martini have learned the ins and outs of Washington politics, not to mention how to prevail in intergalactic war and foil dangerous plots. But, in the aftermath of Operation Destruction, the Gower girls’ powers are burned out, the entire A-C population has been “outed” as the aliens living on Earth that they are, and, worst of all, ACE is nowhere to be found.
Then murder and mayhem are served up at an important dinner party at the American Centaurion Embassy, and when the dust settles Alpha Team and the Diplomatic Corps have more problems than just a dead Congressman.
Is there a single criminal mastermind—or multiple enemies—behind all the conspiracies that want Kitty dead and the A-Cs gone or co-opted to become the War Division?
The return of the best assassins in the business, the reappearance of two individuals long-presumed dead, Agent Malcolm Buchanan felled by something no one can identify or cure, and new technology that can block even the most powerful empath on Earth … all of this means the game’s officially afoot.
Then Vance Beaumont comes to Kitty with a wild theory that someone is systematically killing off the House of Representatives…
It’s up to Kitty and the rest of the gang to find out what’s really going on and why. But will they be able to stop the killer or killers before the rest of the U.S. House of Representatives become casualties? And will the replacement Representative for New Mexico’s 2nd District, who happens to be Jeff Martini, be the next to die?
First, I just want to say that I love the titles and the covers for these books. They’re always so perfect.
On to the review, I started this book two years ago, maybe? I got to 65% and for some reason stopped reading. I’m honestly not sure why, the book is fine, well within expectations of the series, so who knows. Jumping back in I did have a bit of confusion, the cast of characters is massive at this point, but they’re all so memorable that it didn’t take too long to remember what was going on.
What I love about this series is that Kitty is going to figure out what’s going on, no matter what. It is the ultimate wish fulfillment self-insert story. It’s like old sci-fi pulp fiction. Only instead of a dude getting to bang all the chicks and solve all the problems we’ve got a woman that gets to solve all the problems, boss everyone around, and bang her hot husband while all of her friends end up pairing up with hot smart people. It’s perfect.
There’s nothing too deep about this series, but it is complicated. There’s a mass of characters that almost always make an appearance and more are added each book. There’s multiple worlds, though, the this book only takes place on Earth. There are several government agencies and conspiracies and just a whole hell of a lot going on.
Like I said, though, Kitty and her crew will always figure it out in time and the core group of people will survive. It’s comforting junk food that I’m glad I returned too.
When the island’s dormant volcano begins roaring to life, Owen and Claire mount a campaign to rescue the remaining dinosaurs from this extinction-level event.
Fallen Kingdom started off strong. Immediate dinosaur action, then some story explaining that Bryce Dallas Howard had changed from a corporate exec to a bleeding heart, dinosaur loving, activist. Meanwhile, Chris Pratt is building a cabin in the middle of nowhere.
Then back to the dinosaur action. Throw in some exploding volcano and the first half of this movie is just perfect. It hits all the notes you want from a Jurassic Park movie, though, my husband was a bit peeved that the T-Rex was once again a hero.
Things started to slow down for the last third. Well, not really slow down, but I just didn’t care much about it. I didn’t like the introduction of the clone child. It could have been fine, but she was just sort of there in the background and then BOOM saving them. It was eh.
That last third just felt weaker and I can’t really put my finger on why. I didn’t like the kid, but I thought the cloning side of things was interesting, but it kind of expands past what I want from a Jurassic Park movie. Money as a motive was normal, but I didn’t like how easily Bryce was drawn in by the bad guy. She was so smart and capable in the previous movie and she was conned so easily. She didn’t question at all. She was still a badass, though, so I liked that. Chris Pratt helped the IT dude because he knew she could take care of herself.
I love Blue, but the whole Chris Pratt blue backstory was kind of eh. I like seeing a softer side, but it just seemed kind of odd. I feel like they tried to change the characters or make them deeper and not everything worked for me because it went against what I’d already built in my head. Bryce Dallas Howard is a badass corporate chick, while Chris Pratt is an animal trainer that can run.
Great movie. Beautifully shot, felt very much like a Stephen Spielberg movie, so kudos to J.A. Bayona. Music was spot on too. Looking forward to the next.