Director Steven Soderbergh has mentioned that he is giving up directing. But it seems he is just giving up cinema movies. While this film was intended for TV in the USA it is thankfully getting a cinema release in other parts of the world.
I remember even as a child thinking that Liberace was very gay. It amazes me that anyone would think of him otherwise. But somehow his fans did not think he was and even more amazingly he was able to convince a court when he sued a British newspaper. If Liberace was still around today I am positive that with the high level of media scrutiny on celebrities that he would never be able to convince people he was not gay. While he did have an excellent support team that managed to protect him, I'm sure that it would not have been enough today.
Steven Soderbergh is one of my all time favourite directors. His films cover a very wide range of topics and issues. He also makes different genres and styles. Which makes him the perfect choice to direct this film. Steven does not shy away from showing Liberace in all his glory. Including his gay glory. Older people will no doubt be very shocked by the film in its depiction of his gay life. Especially those who fell for the fact he was straight. We must understand that this film is about one of Liberace's lovers Scott Thornson and his view of their relationship. So we only see one side of this man. As expressed here in this film, Liberace is a very complex man who can on one side be very sweet and loving but also be shrewd and cunning. Like many men (gay and straight) he loves to surround himself with young lovers and the way he treats them can be seen as less than loving. But he's not the first man to do that. The film's production design and costume design is one of its major features. Liberace is well known for his flamboyant costumes and they are very much on display in the film. We also get to see the way he lived and some of the extravagant things he bought.
There have been many actors who have played real life characters to such an extent that you forget you are watching an actor play a role but that you are watching that real person. Michael Douglas does that with Liberace. At no time did I see Michael Douglas on the screen. I was convinced I was watching Liberace come to life. This is by far and away his best performance in a long time and proves he is still a brilliant actor. Equally as good is Matt Damon. Both men do things that you would not expect them to do and I really admire them for it. Matt does show himself off a bit more and he is more than up to the challenge. I was a little bit disappointed with Dan Aykroyd. Not so much his performance, which is excellent but just that he does not have very much to do. Rob Lowe puts in one of the funniest performances you will likely see this year. It may not be intentionally funny but he is hilarious and he does not even need to do much to have an effect. As Liberace's mother Debbie Reynolds is excellent in her small role.
This is not only the best film I saw at the Sydney Film festival but one of the best films I've seen so far this year. It's a shame the film was screened on TV as I'm sure there would have been many Oscars handed to it at next year's ceremony.
At the 2005 Sydney Film Festival I saw a documentary about the making of the film 'Deep Throat'. At this year's festival I got to see a film about its main star Linda Lovelace.
I have been fascinated by porn stars and the way that they can have sex on camera as their job. Sex is a very intimate act and to do that as a job I find interesting. Cinema loves to portray the world of porn as being very sleazy and dirty. Most people who enter the industry, as portrayed in cinema, end up regretting it. The film 'Boogie Nights' might be an exception. Despite these warnings people still make it and as a result they make huge amounts of money. And I don't think there has been a porn film that has made more money than 'Deep Throat'. Back in 1972 you had to watch porn in cinemas instead of the privacy of your home like you do today. Which explains why the film was so financially successful. There is also a certain fascination with Linda's oral sex abilities. The directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman have told Linda's story in an unconventional way as far as structure goes. That story is not a very pleasant one so the structure does help make it bearable. There is the cliché of a poorly done by porn star but Linda was treated quite badly. I would have also liked a bit more depth to the events as well. I know the story focuses on Linda but I would have liked to see more of the gangster angle explored.
Up to now Amanda Seyfried has play pretty lightweight roles, now she gets to do something with a bit more substance. Amanda plays Linda in a very sympathetic way. You really feel for her and her plight. Peter Sargaard usually plays this type of sleazy, mean guy so it was not much of a stretch for him, but he is good. You would hardly recognize Sharon Stone as Linda's mother and is excellent in the role. Equally as good is Robert Patrick as Linda's father. There was one scene with Robert that totally blew me away. Chris Noth, Hank Azaria and Adam Brody are all good as Linda's porn co-workers.
It might be a fairly conventional look at a porn star's life. But worth seeing for a different look at how sex is not always a good job.
Actress Mia Wasikowska has become a favourite of the Sydney Festival. A couple of years ago she attended with 'Jane Eyre' and now returns with 'Stoker'.
The only other film I've seen by Korean director Chan-woo Park is his highly regarded 'Oldboy'. A very creepy film with a wonderful twist. For his first English language film he chose this script by actor Wentworth Miller. Wentworth has taken a very Shakespearian story and made it into a thriller. I would love to know how much of Wentworth's script became part of the final film. Chan-woo is a very distinctive director with a certain style and he definitely makes this film his own. On the surface it is a typical story of an uncle who moves in with his brothers family after his brother dies. But of coarse things are not as they seem. Chan-woo has created an incredibly tense atmosphere where you are never too sure what a characters true motives or character is. It is like everyone is hiding some big secret. His use of imagery is amazing and makes the film all that much more creepy. You are constantly on edge. This is largely due to Charlie, the uncle. We know that he is hiding a secret but not sure what it is.
Mia Wasikowska is fast becoming one of the best actresses working today. She is simply stunning in this film as she plays India with a nicely stoic yet slightly menacing. Her character goes through a big transformation in the film and Mia makes that transformation convincingly. Matthew Goode, though just exudes menace in his performance. Just a simple stare can make you feel on edge as you watch his character manipulate his sister-in-law and niece. Nicole Kidman takes a smaller role here but is still excellent as the grieving, lonely widow. Jackie Weaver and Dermot Mulroney also have effective cameo roles.
The story is pretty much as old as time but it feels new when told by Chan-woo Park. For those who like their films on the creepy side.
At the festival this year I am seeing two films starring Steve Coogan and the second starring Alexander Skarsgard.
Divorce is one of those subjects that provides great drama for films. Some divorces can be quite amicable while others can be very brutal. This one is certainly the later. Most films usually take the perspective of the protagonists in a divorce but this film lets you see what happens from the child's perspective. I'm sure that not all divorces are like this but it makes you wonder whether couples actually think about anyone other than themselves in these situations. The emotional struggle that poor little Maisie goes through is very tragic. This 6 year-old girl is used as a bargaining chip in this selfish couples relationship. The way they treat her is I think should be considered child abuse. They both claim to love her and on some level they probably do but you cannot tell that from the way they behave. Her parents do not hurt her physically but I'm sure they are leaving some very strong emotional scars. Further proof that there are some people out there who should be parents. But themost tragic thing is that the two people in the film that should be Maisie's parents will now doubt never get to have that honour because her real parents would fight it.
At the centre of this film is an amazing performance by the young Onata Aprile as Maisie. She is simply stunning in this role and manages to carry the film despite being so young. Something that many adult actors cannot pull off. Her performance feels so incredibly real that you forget she is an actress and you just feel you are watching a real child. Her adult co-stars are quite good as well. Steve Coogan is excellent in a more dramatic role. Showing he can be more than just a crazy character. Julianne Moore is her usual brilliant self. The way she can act selfish but also try and be loving at the same time is amazing. Alexander Skarsgard is also excellent in a role that shows his more softer side. Joanna Vanderham plays another character who becomes almost like a pawn in this couples game. Joanna is very good in the role.
An emotional drama that looks at the harshness of a couple's divorce. Well worth seeing for one of the best performances by a child you will probably see this year.
For this next film at the festival I'm traveling back to the 1960's to explore the lives of two girls at a crisis in their lives.
It is interesting to look at events in retrospect. There have been a few films that explore the tension many people felt in the 1960's as the threat of nuclear war was in the atmosphere. This film explores that tension from the view point of two girls. Both going through problems in their lives and then being continually worried that the world could end. I related more to the problems that the girls had in their personal lives as opposed to the more worldly problem of possible nuclear war. The film is very more conventional than past films by director Sally Potter. The story has a sweet quality to it even with some of the salacious elements. Although the film is supposed to be about the friendship between Ginger and Rosa, Ginger gets more attention towards the end of the film. There is also a certain amount of predictability and cliché with the relationship as Rosa becomes more sexually developed than Ginger does.
Elle Fanning is developing into quite a wonderful actress. I like how she is choosing such a diverse range of roles. Elle is excellent here and brings a very sweet but tough quality to her role. As her best friend Alice Englert is very good but gets somewhat overshadowed by Elle. Alessandro Nivola plays Elle's father with just that right hint of sleeziness that is required. Christina Hendricks is excellent in the motherly role. I was disappointed that we did not get to see more of Timothy Spall, Oliver Platt and Annette Bening but they are very good in their small roles.
A sweet if somewhat conventional coming-of-age tale. The setting of the 1960's does bring an interesting element but not as much as I'd hoped.
Almost 20 years have past since we first met Jesse and Celine as they caught a train to Vienna. We now catch up with them on a holiday in Greece.
Films are a visual medium and so that characters should advance the plot through action and not just talking. However there are some films with such great dialogue that you don't mind that nothing happens action wise. As a script writer the one aspect of writing that I have trouble with is writing interesting dialogue. So I am a fan of movies that feature great dialogue so predominantly. That is very much the case with this 'Before' trilogy. The films mostly consist of two people just walking around talking about life and love. Jesse and Celine are such brilliantly created characters that you enjoy spending time with them. On their surface their lives have changed as they are now married with twin girls. But they are still insecure about love. This might not seem like they have changed over time but I think it makes them feels more real. People are not always so secure about their relationships and they have problems. It helps that they are great at throwing in some hilariously witty lines as they discuss things. The film also adds some extra characters this time around to help add an extra perspective on things. Director Richard Linklater also manages to make the conversations interesting by his use of camera moves. They couple are usually on the move as they talk. There are also scenes where camera angles and the blocking are used to show at what stage their relationship is in. This is one couple that you really have come to care about over the coarse of three films.
This trilogy is by far and away the best thing that both Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. They work so incredibly well together. You would think that they are a real life couple. Their chemistry is so strong. Jesse is the more affable of the two and Ethan plays him with a great deal of easy-going charm. On the other hand Celine is very neurotic and looking for problems in the smallest of details. Julie is definitely great at doing that. I suppose it is great that we have a couple who communicate their problems and do not bottle them up.
Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy prove that you can make a brilliant romantic/comedy trilogy. It is very rare where each film in the series is so great.
This festival movie is based on the true story of a contract killer for the mob who managed to keep his job a secret.
Film makers love to explore the lives of killers. How someone can take human life as a job can be quite a fascinating thing to explore. Especially someone who is able to keep that life a secret. Richard Kuklinski is an interesting character as the job of killer seems very much suited to the type of person he is. Richard comes across as a dark brooding type of guy who you would not want to mess with. But in private he can be quite sweet and charming. Which is why he was able to carry on a seemingly normal life with a family while still killing people. Ariel Vromen's has made an excellent film that explores this paradox quite well. The film has the look and feel of 'Goodfellas' but on a more intimate scale. Ariel does not shy away from the brutality of what Richard does either. I suppose that's the interesting thing that a man can separate such different things in his life. It is further proof that people need to look closely at the people they love.
It is perhaps because of his very nature that Michael Shannon is always cast as nasty characters. He does play the brutal killer side of Richard brilliantly. Just the stares that he gives people makes you think that why would anyone mess with him. As brilliant as Michael is, I'm not sure he is the right choice for the role. He is perfect for the nasty side of the character but not the sweet side. I think if a more sweeter actor was cast who then turns nasty would have been a better challenge. That's just a minor quibble in my view. Winona Ryder does not appear in many films but she is choosing some great roles. As Richard's clueless wife, Winona is excellent and gives a very realist performance. Chris Evans has mostly been an action hero and nice guy so it was great to see him here as a ruthless killer. The way he disposes of bodies is interesting. The one role that really surprised me was David Schwimmer. We all know him as the sweet guy on 'Friends' but you would not expect to see him as a member of the mob.
The brilliant performance of Michael Shannon makes this film worth seeing. Even if he was slightly miscast.
Sometimes at the Sydney Film Festival they have retrospectives of old films. This year they are running a series of British Noir films. I chose this film from the series because it is set in Sydney.
'The Siege Of Pinchgut' was made by a mostly British crew in 1957 but set in Sydney. So it was interesting for me to see Sydney at a different time. This was before the Opera House was built so the harbor looks really different. I also did not know that Fort Denison, which sits in the middle of Sydney Harbour was also called Pinchgut. The plot is a pretty common one of a group of criminals hiding out and taking a family hostage. But this film makes it feel different to others not only because of the unique location but the way the story is told. I'm sure that they could not do the film today as the films main plot devise is that a cannon on the island can be used to blow up a ship of explosives in the harbor and I'm sure the cannons on the island do not work now. The story is very well told and there are many tense moments. I always find it facinating how criminals can do things that they hope will make them innocent but only end up making them more guilty. That situation of digging yourself a deeper hole. That is explored very well here. There are however some unintentional funny moments that you can not help laugh at because of the time it is set.
Aldo Ray is a name that is very familiar to me but I have not seen any of his films. He makes a very effective criminal here who is desperate to clear his name. We do not know much about the crime he's committed so we get to judge him on how he's being portrayed and not what he's done. Neil McCalllum is also very good as Aldo's brother in the film. He is the sweet innocent one that trusts his brother and will do anything to help him. Gerry Duggan was also a familiar face who I've seen a few times. As the caretaker of Fort Denison he gives a nicely realistic performance. Equally as good is Barbara Mullen as Gerry's wife in the film. She is much tougher than most women you see in these types of films.
While technically not an Aussie film it still feels like it. A great action thriller that shows off Sydney Harbour in a different way.
Who would have known that a bachelor party in Las Vegas could have turned into an epic trilogy of films.
'The Hangover' was a comedy that succeeded where many have failed. It managed to marry a very clever plot device with crude humour. Most films with crude humour did not have that type of clever plotting and instead relied on juvenile plotting, like guys trying to get drunk and/or have sex. As is the way of Hollywood when something is successful you try to replicate it and so 'The Hangover Part II' was an exact replica of the original except set in a different location. Despite that familiarity the film was a huge success and so a third film was commissioned. Thankfully Todd Phillips and his team listened to the criticism of the second film and so came up with a different plot for the third film. I think that Todd must be commended for that and I think that the plot here is one of the film's stronger points. Sadly though he has not been able to bring as many laughs as he has in the past. Most of the humour stems from the outrageous behavior of series favourite Mr. Chow and his crazy antics have become so second nature that they do not seems as outrageous as they once did. Alan is also part of that too. His childlike behavior has been a mainstay of the series too. That was one of this film's stronger points is that it tries to address this part of Alan's behavior. So while there are some good points going for it the film lacks many of the big laughs that the first films had. I also think that with some films like this you need to experience it with a big audience. It needs the laugh-track of a massive group like that to help bring out more of the laughs.
Bradley Cooper might be the biggest name on the cast list here but it would seem he had the least to do. These films have become just a paycheck for Bradley so he does not need to try very hard in the acting department. Ed Helms does his usual manic routine which can be quite funny at times. The real star of the film is Zach Galifianakis. His character of Alan is just so well done. The level of stupidity and idiocy is such a finely crafted thing. Ken Jeong gets to explore his Mr. Chow a bit more here and does a very good job. He is very brave for doing some of the more crazy stuff. John Goodman, who seems to be in every film these days, makes a commanding presence as well.
While it does not live up to the lofty standards of the original film, it is far better than the copy-cat second film. It just needed some more laughs or jokes that can survive seeing it with a smaller audience.
A couple of years ago Nat Faxon and Jim Rash won an Oscar for co-writing 'The Descendants'. They now make their directing debut.
Coming-of-age films usually follow a pretty predictable formulae. They can all blend together and look pretty much the same. So it is more enjoyable when you have skilled writers who can make their film stand out even if on the surface it looks the same as other films. Nat and Jim have managed to make their film incredibly enjoyable by not only creating a very funny film but populating it with some really great characters. Duncan is a pretty typical moody teenager. His sullen mood is understandable when you consider what has happened to him. It would depress many young people. Luckily Duncan finds salvation in the unlikeliest of places. While his own family do not appreciate him he finds appreciation with a group of misfits that work at a water park. These misfits are able to appreciate Duncan for who he is because they see some of themselves in him. I admit that much of it is pretty clichéd but Nat and Jim have made it enjoyable with their quick wit and great characters.
Nat and Jim have found a great young actor in Liam James. He is very sweet as Duncan and you can really feel his plight. Around this great performance you get an ensemble of some brilliant comedy actors. Toni Collette gives a more straight performance and so is not as funny but she brings a great deal of reality to her role. Allison Janney is her usual brilliant self even if her role is one you expect her to play. Amanda Peet, RobCorddry, Maya Rudolph and the film's writer/directors Nat Fixon and Jim Rash are also excellent in their small roles. Steve Carell usually plays nice guys or loveable idiots, so it is refreshing to see him play a real asshole. It is a darker side we don't normally see him play. The film though is stolen by the brilliant performance of Sam Rockwell. Again this is a role you would expect him to play but he is just so incredibly funny at it that you do not mind. He gets all the best lines in the film and is a joy to watch.
It is a typical coming-of-age film that is made with a great deal of wit and heart. Worth seeing just for Sam Rockwell alone.
It is my favourite time of the year, the Sydney Film Festival. This year I am doing something a bit more ambitious and I'm going to see 20 films at the festival. I start the festival with this film about eco-terrorists.
At the core of this film is a very good concept. A woman from a security company who goes undercover in an eco-terrorist group to help protect corporate clients. Sadly director Zal Batmanglij and his writers have used this clever concept to make a very predictable and clichéd film. I will no doubt get criticized for the following comment, but I do not think that it was a good choice to make the lead character a woman. Either that or toughen up her character. Sarah is too soft a character for this story. You know right from the start that she is going to fall in love with one of the guys in the group that she is trying to infiltrate. I know that is probably a terribly sexist comment to make but I think the film would have been better and more interesting if it was a man or a tougher woman as the central character. Then don't get me started on the characters that make up The East, the eco-terrorist group. Are all groups like that? Made up of the same type of characters you see in all these types of films? Plus they behave in the same way that these activist groups behave. It did not feel authentic but like a Hollywood construct.
This is an excellent cast of actors but as mentioned above they are lumbered with really clichéd and badly constructed characters. As an actress Brit Marling suits the softness of her character but her character needed to be stronger to suit the story. Ellen Page plays the stereotypical tough character of the group. I think she would have been a better choice to play Sarah. It would have made the film more interesting if Ellen and Brit swapped roles. Alexander Skarsgard does well with his role as the brooding, sexy leader of the activists. Sadly he does not bring anything special to the role. The one highlight was Patricia Clarkson. She is playing a typical ruthless boss but manages to make it fun with some subtle moves. I also liked seeing Julia Ormond, an actress I miss seeing in films.
Probably not the best way to start the festival. Another case of a great concept told in a bad way.
Love stories can come in many different styles. This is very much an artistic version.
Cinema tries to offer you something that you do not get at home which is a big screen experience. But it seems some directors are choosing to decrease the aspect ratio in which you see films. This is another film that plays in the old fashioned 1.33:1 aspect ratio. While it does not diminish from the experience, I just find it interesting as an artistic choice for screening the film. This film is also screening in black and white which also adds to the artistic pedigree of the film. Most of the film is told in voice over rather than dialogue as well. Now I do not want this to turn you off seeing the film. I just wanted to point out that these are some of the many features that make this film very different to some you might see. It is further proof that film is not just for entertainment but an artistic expression. The film felt almost like a silent film except for the voice over. While I did not find the story boring, it did not engage me as much as I had hoped. There are many quirky elements and some very silly things, but over all it did not thrill me.
Part of that lack of thrill is due to the acting. The style of the acting seemed very theatrical and stilted. I think because of the 'silent movie' nature of the story that the actors seemed to be trying to hard. Ana Moreira and Carloto Cotta do make a nice looking couple.
A very good looking film that uses many different artistic techniques to tell the story. Sadly the story is not as interesting as you may hope.
Films about 9/11 have had very mixed success both artistically and financially. Director Mira Nair looks at some of the ramifications of the event.
After 9/11 there was a major fear that ran through the world over people from the Middle East. In many cases the fear was unsubstantiated. As is the case with events like this, the actions of a few crazy people infect an entire race. There have been a few films that look at this phenomenon but none have done it as well as this film. Most films deal with a person who gets caught up inadvertently with people involved in terrorism and US authorities are trying to extract information. But in this film we have a man whose love of America is shattered by his ill treatment. Mira and her writers have brought out the humanity of the situation as we gradually see this man's dreams shattered. That's what makes the story so interesting is that it is a gradual process and not something that happens quickly. Although he is surrounded by people who are his friends, he soon finds out that the fear that's been perpetuated by 9/11 has infected those around him. We see how hard it can be for people in this situation to maintain their innocence. I would like to say that the film is marketed as a thriller but I did not find it terribly thrilling. To me it is a character drama that explored one man's reaction to a difficult situation.
Riz Ahmed is excellent as Changez, the unfortunate man at the centre of the film. His performance felt very realistic. The way he reacts to the way he is treated felt honest and not over the top as can sometimes be portrayed. I was also very impressed with Kate Hudson. I'm glad she has moved away from commercial romantic comedies and moved into some more serious acting. Live Schreiber is very good as another man in a conflicted situation. Kiefer Sutherland brings his usual authoritative presence to his role.
A quality film about what can happen after 9/11. While we may think it is a good idea to go after potential terrorists, it can sometimes just acerbate the situation.
The suburbs are an area that seems very normal on the surface but usually there is lots of drama going on.
It is very tough growing up for kids these days. It gets even tougher when you have neighbours who are out of control. I got the feeling while watching this film that it felt like an English version of 'American Beauty'. While the plot is different it shares some of the themes and issues. There is also the similarity of what can go on under the surface of the average suburban home. I also liked how the film highlights another problem in society which is the false accusation and the impact it can have on people's lives. The film is seem through the eyes of a young girls so you see the events from a more innocent perspective which gives a unique way of seeing things. I really liked the way director Rufus Norris tells the story through his editing and camera work. It has a certain beauty and lyrical quality to it.
This would have to be one of Tim Roth's more restrained roles and the film is all the better for it. Tim has a really wonderful relationship with his co-star Eloise Laurence, which is another reason to see the film. Eloise is a brilliant young actress. She brings a great deal of authenticity to the role. Cillian Murphy is excellent as well in a more subdued role. Many of you will recognise Rory Kinnear as the assistant to M in the recent James Bond films. Here he plays a very different character and is brilliant at it. I also quite liked Robert Emms in his very emotional performance.
Further proof that the suburbs are not as sweet and innocent as they look. It might be a fairly familiar story but it has some great characters performed by some great actors.
Last year I got to revisit the greatest action/adventure film ever made on the big screen. This year I had the chance to see its sequel.
The first time I saw 'Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom' it was by accident. My brother and I were staying with my grandparents in Port Stephens for our holidays. My grandfather decided to take us to the cinema to see 'Supergirl'. It was not until 'Indiana Jones' started that we realized we were at the wrong film. We found out after that my grandmother who had looked up the times in the newspaper had got the times mixed up. This was in the days of single cinema complexes so when my grandfather asked for tickets you did not need to specify a film as it was assumed you'd be going to the next movie screening. My brother and I managed to talk my grandfather into letting us stay and watch the entire film. Something I think he later regretted due to the scary nature of the film's violence.
Steven Spielberg has spoken often about how he was going through a very dark period when making this film because of his divorce from Amy Irving at the time. It is definitely much darker than 'Raiders'. Which is why I think it is such a great sequel. To be more accurate the film is a prequel because it is set before 'Raiders'. 'Temple' begins with a brilliant musical sequence of the Cole Porter song 'Anything Goes'. It is not the typical way to begin an action/adventure film but that is what I loved about it. Unlike his other adventures Indiana stumbles into this one rather than get asked to help out. This also makes a much different approach to the story. It is also a decidedly dark story with scenes of hearts being ripped out of chests and children being employed as slave labor. Despite that it is still a really fun film with lots of brilliant action sequences. My favourite being the mine cart chase near the end. This is probably one of my all time favourite chase scenes in a movie.
I think that if they ever decided to reboot Indiana Jones or remake it that they will have to wait for the memories of Harrison Ford to be long gone. There is definitely no one else who could play this role. I admit that Kate Capshaw is saddled with what is probably the most annoying character in films. Willie is merely baggage for Indiana and not very proactive in the story. Kate does a decent job with the role (which is mostly just screaming) but it would have been better if she had more to do. Amrish Puri makes a really scary bad guy, even if the does take half the film to be revealed. His wide-eyed looks are frightening. Jonathan Ke Quan as Short Round is probably one of the best things in the film. On the surface he is another annoying side-kick but Jonathan is able to bring a great deal of charm to the role and his comic timing is perfect.
Another example of how great some sequels can be if done properly. It may not realize the brilliance of 'Raiders' but is still an excellent action/adventure film.
