This is how I’ve always read that scene, it is just supposed to be a gross-out, with perhaps a little knock at the decadent rich, who in this case happen to be Indian.
Highlander. Not the sequals - nobody ever liked those; the first one. I loved it when it came oyut, but after seeing it again a few years ago…
The premise is terrific, and both Connery and Clancy Brown seem to be having a fun time. The direction, however, is shallow and overly showy, the dalogue is insipid, and the Queen soundtrack dated itself withing about a month and a half (and let’s face it - their 80’s stuff was never really their best). As for Christopher Lambert’s performance - to say the man can’t act his way out of a wet paper bag is really asking too much from him, but I really think that when he memorized his English lines phonetically, he should have had someone tell him what they actually meant. Though I have to say, there’s quite some comedy value in watching a cross-eyed French fashion model trying to cut a Scots accent, especially when sharing the scene with actual Scots.
They can be only one… but maybe there shouldn’t.
St. Elmo’s Fire and Footloose
What was I thinking?
Then neurologically, you are functioning normally, and that’s what’s most important. 
My complaint is that there was a lot more David Bowie bulge in Hoggle’s face than I remembered. I must have repressed that.
Ooo, good one! I second that.
I don’t remember Billy Jack, but I did see The Trial of Billy Jack when I was a kid. Coincidentally, I was cleaning out a room yesterday and I found a book called The 50 Worst Movies of All Time (1979), and they listed The Trial of Billy Jack.
I did see that one when I was a kid. Blew me away. Awesome. Billy Jack kicked arse! Wonderful violence for a pre-teen! And the little kid with one arm getting blown away, and another little kid being shot by the National Guard! Oh, my god! You killed Kids! You bastards!
I vaguely remember renting The Trial of Billy Jack years and years ago. Maybe back in the late-'80s. What a pretentious pile of crap! How could I ever have liked this film?
Exactly. Seems to me that to try to explain it away with some deeper meaning is to become an apologist for it. There needs to be little reason to justify gross-out scenes in the middle of a gross-out movie.
The palace was trying to put its best dignitary face on a diplomatic occasion. The meal served was not “just a little off.” It was full-on weird, with a side of horrifying. And are we really to believe that the kitchen was fresh out of mulligatawny soup and naan? Clearly Willie and Short Round were distressed by the offerings. The kitchen, serving a diplomatic dinner, couldn’t whip up some saag? Even if the only meat available was monkey brains, they couldn’t have mixed it up in a tasty korma? I suppose a dish of baby snake vindaloo or beetle tika masala wouldn’t have moved the story along quite as well.
No, I don’t buy the thuggee explanation. I’m going for the Hollywood explanation.
The worst thing about Temple Of Doom is its arrogant and lazy contempt for continuity. In Raiders, set after Temple, Indy is wearily sceptical of anything mystical or religious - a fairly hard attitude to sustain after all the magical shenanigans he endures in Temple, one would have thought.
The fight on the rope, bridge, too: as he’s being menaced by two sword-wielding thugs, Indy gives a “haven’t we been here before?” smirk and reaches for his empty holster. No, actually, you haven’t been here before: you don’t get to casually shoot a native swordsman until the first film, set a couple of years later. Pure shoddy laziness.
“You Light Up My Life” with Didi Conn. Caught that on cable a few months ago…back in the 70’s I thought it was the coolest movie ever.
Well, to play Devil’s advocate (Spielberg is the Devil, right?) it is possible that Indy had been in such a situation before but we haven’t seen it.
My main problem with Temple of Doom is the heart-ripping-out scene…another pointless and this time gratuitously violent gross-out scene, and completly implausible as well, unless you assume the ceremony uses stage conjuring tricks.
Sorry to hijack the thread, this movie doesn’t answer the OP because I never thought much of it.
The House on Haunted Hill, with Vincent Price.
Scared me so bad when I was a kid that I nearly soiled me shorts. Saw it again about 20 years later and it sucked sooooo bad…
I’m going to go with E.T.
First time around: charming, magical, even a little scary in spots
Second time around: sugar-coated dreck
Also a couple of classic horror movies: Dracula (the Bela Lugosi version) and The Wolf Man (Lon Chaney, Jr.) both scared the bejeesus out of me when I was a wee spoke-let. But watching them as an adult I see clunky dialogue, primitive effects, and Dracula’s dungeon infested with…opossums? That can’t be right!
An no, you’re all wrong. Thw worst thing about Temple of Doom is Kate Capshaw’s screechy over-acting.
Temple of Doom: What was with the little Asian kid? That’s what I want to know.
I think that Asian kid is also in Goonies. Maybe Spielberg has a thing for them. 
What is the deal with Bowie’s pants?
I’ll second Star Wars. Boring as hell.
Quite a few movies I thought were classics in my youth have not held up. I rented The Last Dragon (Remember Bruce Leroy and the villain Sho’ Nuff?) and Kentucky Fried Movie when I first got a DVD player, and found I could sit through neither. Purple Rain doesn’t age well. For some reason, I thought The Cook, The Thief, His Wife And Her Lover and The Rapture were great antidotes to Hollywood blockbusters when they came out, but after re-watching them I found them lame.
Another Couplings reference eh 
I can really relate to Jeff.