The Boss in Rockaway Beach

NO LOOKING BACK (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

After making the fresh surprise of "The Brothers McMullen" and the insufferable sophomore effort, "She's the One," writer-director Ed Burns turns back to less gloss and more grit. Or so it seems.
The opening of "No Looking Back" has grayish skies and grayish boardwalks in Rockaway Beach, NY. A blonde woman arrives at her house holding her bag of groceries (a shot that is repeated a few times) and we sense some form of despair. That woman is Claudia (Lauren Holly), a diner waitress who is living with her fiance, Mike (Jon Bon Jovi) who works double-shifts at his job. She is not ready for a full commitment, that is marriage and kids, and she wishes to go to a restaurant out in Manhattan instead of the same-old same-old local bar. Claudia's mother (Blythe Danner) is optimistic her husband will return, who basically walked out on the whole family. Claudia understands why and, yet, she fears that Mike is someone who will grow complacent. Or she might walk out on him.

Everything looks grim until the slacker Charlie (Edward Burns) arrives back in town after three years - he once had a romantic relationship with Claudia but she got an abortion and he skipped town. All he can do is be a mechanic but he is hoping to woo Claudia back into his life.

I know what some of you are thinking and/or feeling - YAWN! But I gotta say that "No Looking Back" is a far better film than "She's the One" but not nearly as winsome as "The Brothers McMullen." Let us also say that "McMullen," as fresh and invigorating as it was, was a little bit thin but it worked in the way it spun its New York Irish characters with an upbeat feeling. "She's the One" felt like it was written by a computer. "No Looking Back" benefits from excellent performances, especially Blythe Danner as the eternal optimist, Lauren Holly as the girl who is tickled pink by Charlie but is also searching for her own individuality, Connie Briton as Claudia's sister who has one big emotional scene that left me devastated (she is damn good and you might remember her as the forgiving wife in "McMullen"), and Jon Bon Jovi who proves he is a better actor than a singer. I can't leave out Edward Burns who plays a character type, a slacker from a working class background, but he does it so convincingly that the Bruce Springsteen songs in the soundtrack help visualize Burns in the role he plays.

 "No Looking Back" did poorly at the box-office and got negative notices. That is a shame because Burns is a fine director - he works beautifully with actors and allows them time on screen in sustained long takes. Though he should still work on embellishing his characters and make them shine, Burns has got the stuff to be a great director some day and he is not afraid to be honest and true. 

Blasphemy of the prophet Mohammed, or stupid propaganda?

INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS: Irresponsible filmmaking?

By Jerry Saravia

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in hiding over the controversial "Innocence of Muslims"

Where does a filmmaker's responsibility lie? When a film is released and causes an uproar and violent protests, how much responsibility should a filmmaker claim to the work itself? These are questions one could ask about the highly controversial "The Innocence of Muslims," an anti-Islam film that has been used as a bludgeoning political tool against all Muslims, perhaps specifically Muslim/Islamic extremists. The unfortunate 9/11/12 Benghazi bombing at a consulate that left 12 dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, has left ripples on both American political party lines and a lot of justified anger from Muslims. The film "Innocence of Muslims" has been blamed for the incident and worldwide protests have sparked furor across the Middle East and Europe, Australia and Canada. But is it really the film's fault or is the film being used as an excuse? Supposedly, al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the embassy attack in response to the U.S. drone strike which killed Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader.

"Innocence of Muslims" began under the title "Desert Warriors" and had to do with a certain Master George. The producer/filmmaker is Sam Bacile, real name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who did not tell the actors that the film had to do with the Prophet Mohammed. He also told the film crew he was an Israeli real estate mogul when in fact he is an Egyptian and a Coptic Christian (and has a criminal background that includes bank fraud charges). Nakoula somehow obtained 5 millions dollars to make the film, using his home as a location for shooting. The film's trailer premiered on Youtube in July, 2012 and didn't cause a stir at all. Only after 9/11/12, and with the newly revised trailer that was translated in Arabic, did an uproar initiate. Clearly, from having viewed the trailer, the film is overdubbed with lines of dialogue referring to Mohammed and a donkey as the "first Muslim animal" and much more. Mohammed is depicted with no undergarments, resting his head in a woman's netheregions and, well, you get the idea.

I can safely say from what I viewed that this film is a laughable travesty. It is obviously green-screened to death, is acted with the restraint of a 3rd grade school production, laughably and badly dubbed (you can clearly hear where the offending lines of dialogue are inserted) and shoddily made. I would hope that this garbage would not be taken seriously at all but any depiction of Mohammed is seen as an affront to Islam (the late Moustapha Akkad's film "Mohammed, Messenger of God" wen through great care to never show the Prophet, which is expected no matter how reverential the depiction). So should anybody care? I say no, but I am not the filmmaker who clearly made a film to offend, not provoke. That may be the difference in hindsight. When Martin Scorsese faced scorn and controversy with "The Last Temptation of Christ," he intended to make a spiritual film that was meant to question our own faith in the son of God - he made the film to provoke discussion, not to incite hatred and violent protests. Granted, "Last Temptation" had enormous protests outside movie theaters because it did not treat Jesus with reverence - it examined him as a fallible human being who had sex with Mary Magdalene (the latter being a temptation on the cross). In other words, not so divine. But there was no war, in the literal sense, that used the film to add fuel to the fire.

This is not the first time that a film caused Muslims to protest. The most extreme example may be Theo van Gogh, the director of a 2004 11-minute short film called "Submission,"the broadcast of the film which led to the assassination of the director by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim fundamentalist. The film itself deals with Muslim women who have been abused by men, instructed by way of Koranic interpretations. After van Gogh's death, there were fire-bombings of mosques and Muslim schools. Of course, if van Gogh had not made the film, he might still be alive. But he did make the film and it cost him his life for revealing the misogyny against Muslim women. Another controversial film was 2008's "Fitna," which depicts Mohammed with a bomb strapped on his head and, for literary comparisons, there is Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" (considered blasphemous by Muslims). "Satanic Verses" also caused controversy and some killings and attacks on various book publishers (as a result of an imposed fatwa that still stands to this day by the late Ayatollah Khomeini) forcing the author to be in hiding and under police protection for nine years. Mr. Rushdie has also gone on record to decry the trailer itself as "outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting."

With trouble and civil unrest brewing in the Middle East (not to mention a recent French magazine printing drawings of a naked Mohammed), maybe a film like "Innocence of Muslims" is not the right move. It had one screening in L.A. (under the title "Innocence of Bin Laden") and the protests seems to have largely been initiated by a Youtube trailer dubbed in Arabic, not the screening of the film itself (allegedly only ten people were in attendance). But if it caused no protest before, why did it cause protest after the embassy bombing? Are the filmmakers responsible for the violence, or should we not be blaming the bombers themselves? Why is a stupid film of this nature the brunt of all recent upheaval, and not the French magazine? And where does a filmmaker's responsibility lie when an actress named Cindy Lee Garcia, who worked on the film, has been receiving death threats and is currently suing the producer?

The message seems to be: ridicule or provocation induced by criticism of any Muslim teachings and the prophet Muhammad are not to be tolerated and can result in, gulp, death and destruction. Chilling thought.

Opening old wounds

THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(review from July, 2004)

At one time, I had found certain remakes fascinating. If I didn't, I wouldn't have seen Gus Van Sant's reprehensible "Psycho" or the abysmal redo of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." Remaking the John Frankenheimer classic, "The Manchurian Candidate," seems almost sacrilegous. Still, despite its many flaws, the Jonathan Demme remake has moments of terror and intense thrills but it is relatively uninspired.

The opening frames of "The Manchurian Candidate" are set during the Gulf War, where a group of soldiers play cards inside a tank (a group of songs and fade-outs signify a long period of time in the tank). Ben Marco (Denzel Washington) and Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) lead their unit to an ambush where they are attacked by helicopters. It is so chaotic that Marco passes out, unable to recall what happened. Years later, as he explains his story to a classroom of potential soldiers, he reminds them that despite the horror of war, a Congressional Medal of Honor is still worth the risk. The medal was won by Shaw, not Marco, who defended his troops in need. Now Shaw is up for a vice-presidential election, but he does not look like a man ready for politics - he mostly sits in hotel suites by himself and appears detached. Not your normal vice-presidential nominee.

By contrast, Marco is suffering from endless nightmares, usually one where his fellow soldiers are executed by Shaw. To keep from sleeping, Marco buys a lot of noodles and Nodoz. His apartment is always shown in disarray, packed with newspapers and clippings on the walls. After being reminded of his nightmare by one soldier, Melvin (a forceful Jeffrey Wright), Marco decides to seek the truth by asking Shaw what happened. Only the powers that be don't want him anywhere near Shaw, especially when Shaw's mother, Sen. Eleanor Shaw (Meryl Streep), wants Shaw to be president, by any means necessary. Meanwhile, Marco tries to piece the truth together, discovering that Manchurian Global, a worldwide corporation with ties to many powerful leaders, may have financially gained from the war. They may also be responsible for brainwashing soldiers, and perhaps they are seeking a "sleeper" to be in the White House.

If you have seen the original 1962 film, then a lot of this is probably very familiar. To be fair, Demme injects his own touches and the screenplay by Daniel Pyne and Dean Georgaris (based on George Axelrod's original script) injects a new threat over communism: large-scale corporations that fund wars. The problem is that the screenplay often aims to explicate scenes from the original rather than insinuate. The nightmare itself, which is frightening to watch, comes much too soon in the film. The ability by which soldiers are brainwashed is also revealed in tight close-ups of a medical procedure that would make doctors rather squeamish! Sometimes the film reaches for melodramatic, slightly overdone scenes such as Marco's retrieval of a chip in his skin, or the terminally overlong ending that aims for resolution rather than ambiguity. The beauty of the original "Candidate" is that it left so much to the imagination. Even one of the strangest scenes in cinema history with the original actors, Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh, proved why the film worked on your nerves - the paranoia and deterioration of political corruption certainly put me in a cold sweat through most of the movie.

Demme's version lack the original's paranoia - in many ways, this is just another anonymous political thriller with the benefit of superlative performances. Denzel has many great moments, especially his conversations with Raymond Shaw. And Liev Schreiber (who I hope will finally receive star recognition) is a standout as the oblique Shaw - his creepy smile at the end of the film is memorable. Kudos must also go to Meryl Streep (an actress I often dislike) playing the first truly bitchy, outspoken character in her whole career - she is also oblique and not as mannered as she usually appears. Jon Voight has a terrifically spry scene as another senator.

"The Manchurian Candidate" is worthwhile for its performances and for Demme's flashy direction and knowing sense of subjectivity. What it lacks is a genuine sense of purpose.

Excuse me, while I whip this out!

BLAZING SADDLES (1974)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Blazing Saddles" is not my favorite comedy by Mel Brooks. It is uneven and features an ending that takes us somewhere else, which may be the point. More importantly, it does not have the high belly laugh ratio of "Young Frankenstein," his most perfectly uproarious film. "Blazing Saddles" is still funnier and loopier than "High Anxiety" or "Silent Movie" and that is damn good enough.

Describing the plot of "Blazing Saddles" would be insane because I am not sure there is much of one. Bart (Cleavon Little) is a railroad worker who is forced, along with his crew, to sing the stereotypical song, "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" to appease some bigoted white men. The joke is they sing something else which doesn't appeal the white folks. Eventually, Bart is made sheriff of Rock Ridge due to a scheme by Attorney General Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman) so he can clear out the town (after all, in the Old West, who would want a black sheriff?) The scheme involves building a railroad through Rock Ridge and making a profit. With the help of womanizing, corrupt-to-the-core Governor William J. LePetomaine (Mel Brooks), this should be a cinch. Of course, the townsfolk eventually embrace Bart and his sidekick, the fastest gunfighter in the world, the Waco Kid (Gene Wilder).
At the time "Blazing Saddles" was readying for release, some studio execs scoffed at the racial epithets and the scatalogical humor, namely the famous farting in the campfire scene (and what would you do if you ate baked beans?) It is fascinating that Mel Brooks, who had final cut, got away with what he had. Today's audiences may not be receptive to the racial epithets, but who knows.

"Blazing Saddles" has some classic gags and some moments that will make you go, "huh?" One background gag includes a painting of a wedded couple with their backs turned in Korman's office. As my wife suggested, perhaps this was meant for a punchline that was never filmed. The ending initially left me perplexed years back - the camera pulls back to reveal that the whole movie is made in the Hollywood backlot followed by a tapdance number - and then I realized my counterproductive complaint. When Bart rides into town, Count Basie is playing with his orchestra. And there is a Warner Bros. wink to the Old Looney Tunes cartoons involving a candygram. This whole movie is not meant to just parody westerns - it is Mel Brooks searching for every hook, line and sinker to make us laugh at anything he throws at us. My absolute favorite moment is when the stupid, childlike Mongo (Alex Karras) punches a horse. And I adore Madeline Kahn's wonderful imitation of Marlene Dietrich singing "I'm Tired" (a song created for the film).

There is much to enjoy in "Blazing Saddles," including all the potshots taken at racist white people who are incredibly dumb in this film. I loved the chemistry between Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder, who are as engaging and fun to watch together as almost anything else they have ever done. For every gag that works, there is at least one that misfires (the Native American confronting a black family in a carriage is flat). Harvey Korman can also be a bit much at times and I will never understand the appeal of Dom DeLuise. Still, a frantic comedy of bad manners and bad form is all one should expect from Mel Brooks.

Dracula dead and buried in Venice

NOSFERATU IN VENICE (1988)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I will do anything for a buck

The greatest vampire film I have ever seen was Werner Herzog's masterful remake of F.W. Murnau's 1922 classic "Nosferatu," which starred the grandly theatric Klaus Kinski as the rat-like Dracula (the silent film starred the creepy menace of Max Schreck). The remake was a triumph of atmospheric decay and melancholy mood, a tragic tale of a Dracula who wanted to end his suffering of living century after century. "Nosferatu in Venice" is a sequel I have heard of before, though it is not currently available on video in the United States - I managed to secure a copy through the Chiller Theater convention in New Jersey since I was anxiously curious to see it. The end result is a beautiful bore, an utterly senseless sequel with no significant purpose for its existence. The late Klaus Kinski was the sort of actor who would appear in almost any kind of film no matter how awful - he was not exactly selective and probably needed the money to finance his dream project "Paganini," which I have still not seen.

Kinski returns as Nosferatu, though actually referred to as Dracula in the 1979 original (Nosferatu really means the "undead," so why is he referred to as Nosferatu?) This vampire is no longer rat-like or venomous looking - instead he resembles a lost hippie from a Grateful Dead concert with long white hair and threatening black eyes. There is some story involving Christopher Plummer as an expert on vampires who takes part in a seance to bring back Nosferatu from the dead! Why??? Not sure. Donald Pleasance appears occasionally as some bickering holy priest, and there are lots of terrific, nocturnal shots of the streets of Venice (seemingly unoccupied) and some gypsies who hail the name of Nosferatu, not to mention a ballroom full of people dancing with Venetian masks. Oh, we also see a tomb that is locked by iron straps where some creature resides, ready to pounce.

Nothing in "Nosferatu in Venice" makes much sense, though the central theme seems to be that the vampire wants the blood of a virgin so he can remain dead forever - he is still in desperation to die but continues to torment female victims on the streets of Venice. And there are some briefly erotic, almost softly pornographic sex scenes between Kinski and the virgin and some other woman who may be the reincarnation of a lost love. Maybe...who knows since there is no real clarification of who any of these people are.

For gore fans, there are two scenes of impalement on a courtyard fence, and some fang work on female necks with blood gushing from their wounds. For those who favored the atmosphere of the original, there are some murky shots of Venice and a final scene of the vampire carrying a naked woman in long shot while birds fly through the air. Other than that, this film is silly, hardly terrifying, and contains distracting synthesizer music - Plummer is the sole saving grace with his wonderful, commanding voice.

"Nosferatu in Venice" is hardly the worst of the vampire flicks, but it serves little purpose as a sequel or as a vampire flick. Credited with three directors (no Herzog this time out), this is just another cheaply-made horror flick out for a fast buck.

Footnote: The video version I saw contained Japanese subtitles, which are a distraction, and the voices of the Italian actors seemed to have been dubbed whereas Plummer and Pleasance are obviously speaking in their native tongue.

Don't call me Junior!

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE (1989)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The third time's the charm in the last entry of the wonderful "Indiana Jones" series. Although it is essentially a recap of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" using Nazis again as villains, it is also the official sequel to "Raiders," taking atmosphere that restrains itself from being as over-the-top as "Temple of Doom" place two years later after the original. It also has a comforting, relaxing of humor and provides more depth on Indiana than the last two did. But do not fret, "Last Crusade" is chock full of action scenes and plenty of derring-do. 

This time, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford, aging very gracefully) is in pursuit of the Holy Grail, the cup that Jesus Christ drank from at the Last Supper. A millionaire named Walter Donovan (Julian Glover) wants to acquire the Grail before anyone else does and suggests that Indiana find it. Indiana, being the resourceful adventurer and archaeologist, senses that his father (Sean Connery), an expert on Grail mythology, is the more appropriate choice. Unfortunately, Indy's father is already on the search and is missing, which means that Indy not only has to find his father but also the Grail. Accompanying Indy on his first stop in this journey to Venice is Indy's mentor, Marcus (the late Denholm Elliott), and a typically beautiful art historian, Dr. Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody). Lots of chaos ensues as well as wall-to-wall action scenes in motorboats, planes, motorcycles, zeppelins, tanks, horses, and so on. The film, as directed by Steven Spielberg, juxtaposes all these scenes with moments of pure comic relief and enough moments of pause and reflection before embarking on yet another dazzling action sequence. One inspired moment has Indy confronting Adolf Hitler, a scene that is hilarious and eerie in a strange way (apparently, there was a deleted scene where a Leni Riefenstahl filmmaker is shooting footage of the burning of books in a Nazi rally).

It is remarkable that after two movies, "Last Crusade" still finds something innovative and fresh in situations that are as cliched as romantic kisses before a fade out. For example, a typically sorry bit involving a revolving wall is punctuated by tightly edited action and some burst of humor, like using an Adolf Hitler head statue to block the revolving wall from letting Nazis enter (Groucho Marx would've been proud of such a moment). A motorcycle chase is handled with finesse when it turns into a jousting tournament. A plane ready to fire at its heroes on a beach is demolished by flying geese (thanks to a quote from Charlemagne). Another plane nearly explodes when its wings fall apart entering a tunnel where the heroes are being chased in a car. The climactic tank chase is especially good, though it does seem to run out of steam after a while until it ends with...well, just see the movie. Oh, yes, and the zeppelin sequence has a one-liner by Ford that remains something of a classic (Kevin Smith paid homage to the line in "Dogma".) In addition, there is a clever opening sequence introducing the late River Phoenix as a young Indy, a Boy Scout in Utah, who is pursued for robbing an artifact from looters. All of Indy's trademarks are exploited and explained. 

It was a blessing to cast Sean Connery as Indiana's father, Dr. Henry Jones, a highly private professor who is amazed at his son's ingenuity of getting out of one scrap after another. This also serves a more historical note in cinema in that Connery used to play James Bond, who is the true sire of Indiana Jones (lest we forget that Spielberg initially wanted to make a Bond movie before George Lucas introduced an idea about an archaeologist). Connery and Ford have the right chemistry and their bickering and shouting results in a newfound respect for one another (Indy's father has mostly been estranged).

The villains are nastily evil, as always, yet none come close to the great villain Belloq from "Raiders of the Lost Ark." He had a charm and humanity that is unrivaled, particularly when wooing Karen Allen's Marion, Indy's original leading lady. Here, we have Michael Byrne as Vogel, a Nazi commandant who certainly has a hardened evil streak within but is mostly a cartoonish variation on his similar role in "Force 10 From Navarone," which also starred Ford. There is one other villain but it would be a spoiler to reveal who he is.

Alison Doody has charisma to spare as the good doctor with a few cards up her sleeve, but she is a disappointment when compared to Karen Allen's feistiness. She is a major improvement on Kate Capshaw's whiny love interest in "Temple of Doom" if only because she does not scream every two minutes.

"Raiders" returnees Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies bring back their roles with equal relish and delight (though I wonder why Marcus is turned into such a clumsy fool since not a hint of that was suggested in "Raiders"). There is also a nod to "Raiders" when Indiana and Dr. Schneider are in the catacombs of Venice and find a familiar illustration on the wall:

Indy: "It's the Ark of the Covenant." 

Elsa: "Are you sure?"

Indy: "Pretty sure." 

"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" is a more mature, character-driven, less wildly over-the-top entry in the series. It is lots of fun and often magical in its continuingly affectionate tribute to the serials of yesteryear. The action is still intense and surprising, thanks to Steven Spielberg's assured and strenuous direction but it is not as thrillingly manic and ghoulish or as thunderously escapist as the earlier films. Spielberg reportedly scaled back the action and the violence as a response to parents' who were horrified by the grimmer-than-expected tricks of "Temple of Doom" (this is also evidenced by the lighter tone of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," 19 years later). With Ford and the lighthearted touch of Connery, the movie is quite an achievement and it packs an emotional, slightly sentimental punch. Plus, we now know where Indiana got his name from.

Spielberg whips it good

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Spielberg's masterful "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was set in the year 1936. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" takes place in 1935, one year before the events of "Raiders." Not that it matters because this entry retains the flavor, if not the subtlety, of the original. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" remains the most exhausting action-adventure film ever made, building on one clever surprise and predicament after another and never letting up for one second. "Raiders" had momentum and moments where the audience could breathe. Spielberg goes so over-the-top that it seems we are watching a manic cartoon on overdrive where we can hardly brake for a single breath.

The film begins with an explosive opening sequence set in Shanghai that practically outdoes "Raiders" famous opening. We see Indiana dressed in a tuxedo, entering a ritzy nightclub where he meets some nefarious Chinese gangsters. Before you know it, Indiana is poisoned; seeking a vial with the antidote while evading bullets and a Chinese gong; dancers try to perform "Anything Goes" while there is chaos; there are dozens of balloons, rickshaws, and so on. It is a tense, almost spooky action sequence in that the intensity level is so high that you feel you are in a roller coaster that never ends. That is the spirit of the movie. Anyways, Indiana leaves Shanghai almost unscathed from harm with a floozy singer in tow, Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), and a smart-mouthed Chinese kid named Short Round (Ke Huy Quan) who wears a Yankees hat. They travel by plane until they discover there are no pilots! Then we are in another tense sequence where Indiana tries to fly the plane but fails, gets an inflatable raft (!) and off we go! Before you can say "whew," our weary travelers are in India. It turns out that a small village is suffering thanks to the loss of some precious, magical stones. Of course, Indiana has to travel to a palace where the stones are kept and bring them back to the village. But isn't he a professor and shouldn't he be heading back to America?

Inside the palace, it is discovered that a secret, ancient ritual is performed where hearts are ripped out from unlucky villagers, yet they still manage to breathe! Yes, it is a gross moment among many. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" has been criticized for its heavy graphic violence and intense action scenes. It was so intense that it led to the creation of the PG-13 rating (that summer saw the mean, thoroughly vicious "Gremlins" which also helped to create such a rating). "Temple of Doom" piles on the gross gags including the eating of monkey brains and oozing liquids and other disgusting creatures in every single crevice of the underground palace. There are also whippings galore, beatings aplenty, and some occasional blood and gore. Some of it is layed on so thick that Spielberg feels he may as well give it all - what the heck, audiences want the thrill-a-minute cliffhangers of "Raiders" and it is delivered ten fold. Some gags go a long way and others do shock, particularly the infamous heart-ripping scene.

Still, "Temple of Doom" is about doom, not "the temple of roses" as Spielberg once said. For thrilling action and incomparable fright, nobody can do it better than the Spielman. We have a room of collapsing walls with spikes, cavernous hideaways, mine cars, waterfalls, planes, collapsing rope bridges, chains, leather, whips, and so on. And our hero even repeats the old marksman versus the swordsman joke only this time, there is no gun!

Ford plays it straight as usual, and is more muscular than before (thanks to Body by Jake in the credits). Kate Capshaw remains a bit of a bore in the film, far too whiny and insipid to inspire much sympathy. Still, she has a few bravura moments, especially the "five minute" scene where she waits for Indiana to make love to her. She has some pizazz and comedic energy but hardly enough, and is no comparison to the feisty Karen Allen in the original. Ke Huy Quan is also a bit of a whiner but also has his inspired moments (like the Buster Keaton gag of climbing onto a mine car by using someone else's body) and a few good one-liners.

The dastardly villain is Mola Ram (Amrish Puri), the leader of a Thuggee cult who is determined to find the lost Sankara stones in the mines. He is cartoonishly evil, lacking some of the depth and personality of the Nazi villains and especially Belloq, the French archaeologist from "Raiders." Still, Mola Ram is a formidable opponent for Indy. At one point, after hearing of Mola Ram's plans to rule the world, Indiana exclaims, "What a vivid imagination." Indeed. Nice bit of trivia: Mola Ram was also a villain in the excellent "Gunga Din."

Possibly the darkest fantasy film Spielberg has ever made, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" hardly has the sunny disposition of "Raiders" but it is a fierce, unrelenting often humorous action film that often parodies itself and "Raiders." Its vivid, tantalizing action scenes are so grim and of such a roller-coaster-ride mentality that it gives new meaning to the word "breathless."