Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Fargo” is one of the most original films I’ve ever seen. I practically dare you to name one element from another movie from which you can say something from this movie borrowed. Everything—from its premise to its protagonist to its screenplay—feels like you hadn’t seen it before. It takes the scheme-gone-wrong thriller element and provides it with fresh twists in its story and its characters. Crafted by the Coen Brothers (Joel and Ethan Coen), “Fargo” is a masterpiece—an amazing, well thought-out film that was absorbing and original from beginning to end.

You could say that the minds of both Coen brothers are unusual and somewhat twisted, compared to most filmmakers, but there’s no denying that they have a great deal of ambition that comes through with their scripts. “Fargo” represents all of their trademarks, taken up a notch—quirky humor, dim-witted characters, visual knack, and more.

The film even uses a stylish device as an inside-joke, saying it’s based on a true story when it’s not. There’s an opening caption stating that events similar to those in 1987 were the inspiration for this story, and the characters’ names have been changed. Reportedly, it turned out not to be true and just a sly joke at the concept.

The story begins in Fargo, North Dakota, as a Minnesota car salesman, Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) meets two thugs, Carl Showalter (Steve Buscemi) and Gaear Grimsrud (Peter Stormare). Jerry has a bizarre, absurd plan for these two to put in motion for him—to kidnap his own wife in his Minnesota hometown and hold her for a ransom of 80 grand. He plans to have his father-in-law, Wade (Harve Presnell), pay the ransom so that Jerry can receive about 50-percent of it. It seems like a foolproof plan to him—he gives them a car and a plan and simply waits it out. But what he didn’t rely on was the notion that Carl and Geaer are not very good at what they do; in fact, they’re actually lousy, pathetic crooks. They do kidnap Jerry’s wife, all right, but then while driving through Brainerd, Minnesota, they wind up killing a state trooper and two witnesses to the crime.

That’s the first 30 minutes of “Fargo” and believe it or not, that’s just the prologue. We are then met with our true protagonist, a pregnant cop named Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand). Marge is a grinning individual who lives a good life with what she has—a good husband (John Carroll Lynch) and a nice outlook on life, in that it’s the little things that bring her pleasure. She goes to investigate the murders, as she questions those who may have seen the two killers and takes lead upon lead until she is led to the truth.

Meanwhile, things only get worse for Jerry and the two thugs. Jerry’s kidnapped wife is hysterical and shrieking throughout to the point where her constant freakouts amuse the two. They are obviously having fun doing this, which brings a creepy, sardonic edge to the situation. And as Marge is soon enough led to Jerry, Jerry fully understands that his stupid plan has gotten way out of control, and unless he can do something about it, he’s going to be in big trouble.

The character of Marge is arguably the best thing about “Fargo.” This is just a fantastic, wonderful character to follow. She’s a police chief in Brainerd who happens to be seven months pregnant, and maintains a chipper attitude as well as a heavy Minnesotan accent (her “yeah’s” sound like “ya’s”). She’s very smart, very bright, and able to reconstruct certain events in the investigative situation she’s called to solve. Even if she knows someone is lying to her, she’ll still maintain her cheerful attitude with a smile, knowing something new will come from this eventually. And at the end, you realize she is the character in “Fargo” with the most control and the most ideal outlook on life. She doesn’t focus on just money for happiness; she knows the little things in life are worth having. Everyone else either wants something big, like money for instance, so desperately that all it does is bring them to hell. Marge is the one that stands tall among the rest. I loved watching this character work throughout this film, and Frances McDormand did a wonderful job at portraying her.

William H. Macy is also fantastic as Jerry Lundegaard. His fear and frustration that comes through as the character realizes his big mistakes in hiring the wrong people (and starting the idea in the first place) comes through with a great performance. Steve Bucsemi is wonderfully talkative as the beyond-sly Carl, while Geaer Grimsrud is very droll as the tougher, and bloodier, companion. They’re surprisingly three-dimensional psychotics—pathetic but not willing to admit it yet, if ever.

There are many moments in “Fargo” that create comedy from views on human nature. For example, there’s a scene in which the two thugs have sex with hookers in a sped-up one-shot that immediately cuts to them all in bed together watching “The Tonight Show.” There’s also the behavior of the cops, particularly Marge’s dim-witted male partner who doesn’t understand that the “DLR” on license plates means that they’re “dealer plates.” (I love it when Marge states, “I’m not sure I agree with ya a hundred percent on your police work there, Lou.”) Other moments like that provide effective comic relief. There is one scene that comes out of nowhere (actually, I should probably rephrase that because every scene seems to come out of nowhere in order to keep it all going). It involves Marge meeting up and having dinner with a high-school classmate, Mike Yanagita (Steve Park). She is simply there to have dinner with an old friend, while he obviously has something else in mind. After the dinner, she learns from another high-school friend (a woman) that Mike has lied about everything to her in order to get closer to her. At first, I didn’t see the purpose in this scene, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought it made sense. You see, this is sandwiched between Marge’s two meetings with Jerry. In the first meeting, Marge was unsure of Jerry’s story, but this encounter with Mike served as a sort-of wakeup call for her. This then leads her back to Jerry’s office, where she is determined to find some true answers—and this is the interview that Jerry just can’t take anymore.

“Fargo” is built upon originality and is a true delight that way. It’s well-made, well-acted, well-executed, and just so incredibly detailed without ever getting boring or clichéd. This is a wonderful movie that truly highlights the amazing talent of the filmmaking Coen brothers.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Secret of Roan Inish” represents that special type of “family film” that is often ignored by most kids who would rather see juvenile comedies or superhero blockbusters. The other type of family film is that kind that doesn’t go for what’s hip and new with the younger audiences; it does its own thing and takes its audience seriously (and as a result of that, the adults enjoy it as well, and they don’t regret seeing it with their kids). And most kids won’t want to check it out; they’ll just see it as a quiet, boring film with nothing entertaining on the screen. But the adults will see it as a tender, involving film that tells an interesting story in a soft manner that the most deplorable “family films” don’t have the courage to do. While the kids aren’t always going to race to see it over something like “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie” (released the same year as “The Secret of Roan Inish”), they at least deserve the option. It’s there for them; they just have to be there for it, in return.

With that said, “The Secret of Roan Inish” is a real treasure of a movie. This isn’t merely a great “family film”—it’s a great film, period.

Based on the children’s book by Rosalie K. Fry, “The Secret of Roan Inish” is the story of a young, motherless girl named Fiona Coneelly (Jeni Courtney) who is sent to live with her grandparents in a small fishing village in Ireland. The grandparents (Mick Lally and Eileen Colgan), along with a young cousin of Fiona’s, Eamon (Richard Sheridan), live near Roan Inish, which is a Gaelic name for “seal island.” Then Fiona starts to hear the stories tossed around by the family and the locals—legends that seem to have a connection with Fiona and her family. Apparently, the seals that inhabit the land are not what they seem, which is why it’s said that no fisherman would dare to harm them. They are said to be “selkies”—seals who transform into women. There’s also the story that Fiona herself may have been the half-child of a selkie who fell for Fiona’s father and then left because she “couldn’t stay away from the sea.” Is it true? And what about Fiona’s long-lost baby brother, Jamie? Years ago, he drifted out to sea in his cradle and was left for dead. Is he really dead or have the seals been caring for him since then? With each story and each question, Fiona sets out to find some answers.

“The Secret of Roan Inish” tells this story with the right balance of magic and realism, as director John Sayles tells the story with complete seriousness with the mystic elements more in the background. They’re there, but they’re framed in a way that further assist the story. As a result, the story is absorbing and the audience buys into the magic. The appearance of solid, three-dimensional characters helps too. Each character is believable and the actors (especially the fierce youngster Jeni Courtney and the wonderful accomplished Irish actor Mick Lally) do credible jobs at portraying them. And I found myself caring about the story and what the characters go through, which also includes possible eviction from the grandparents’ home, and Fiona and Eamon working to fix up an old cottage at Roan Inish to stay.

In other hands, I think “The Secret of Roan Inish” would have been more of a fantasy in that it probably would have been more fanciful and simpleminded. So I’m real glad that John Sayles had the courage to make it the way he sees it done. This is a wonderful movie. Even if you see it as a family film, it’s not shallow in the slightest. Kids might enjoy it, if they choose to check it out, and I think adults might like it even more. For a film about a seal-woman, “The Secret of Roan Inish” feels credible and very enthralling.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Ghostbusters” is a highly enjoyable comedy. It features three elements that make it inventive (the casting of SNL/SCTV alumni, state-of-the-art ILM special effects, and a B-movie plot) and a sharp screenplay with some very funny dialogue to make it work. We have Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis as a team of paranormal investigators/”ghost exterminators,” and a whole lot of special effects. But because it’s Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis as the three heroes in a special-effects summer blockbuster, the effects do not overshadow them in the slightest. They instead assist them. And rightly so, because these three make for very funny company—they’re like a group of college buddies who know the score of their own jokes. I could listen to these guys talk and watch them interact with each other for hours, and they do plenty of that in “Ghostbusters,” even in some heavy-duty FX sequences when they should try and be serious.

Murray plays Peter Venkman, Aykroyd is Ray Stantz, and Ramis is Egon Spengler. They are parapsychologists working at Columbia University, but are somewhat of a misfit group. Stantz and Spengler are more serious about their work, but haven’t necessarily stumbled upon anything yet. Venkman, on the other hand, is a class-A goofball who likes to tease his research students with shock therapy. But one day, the three encounter a ghost for the first time at the local library, and after they are fired from their jobs at Columbia, they decide to start their own “ghost-catching” business. They call themselves “Ghostbusters” and are able to create a special sort of technology that can allow them to “contain” apparitions. Their first bust is a green, disgusting blob (“Slimer”) at a hotel, and once more and more ghosts appear, the Ghostbusters are on call to contain them.

One assignment that has them busy is Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), whose refrigerator apparently to be haunted by a demonic spirit known as “Zuul.” As Stantz and Spengler discover, the penthouse apartments of her building are the source of the paranormal activity happening around the city, which means that something big is about to happen—something of apocalyptic proportions. And if that sounds completely ridiculous for a comedy, you really shouldn’t care, because the movie is all about laughs in the face of the situation. Dana does become possessed by Zuul, after being attacked by two beasts that serve as a dark lord’s pets (or something like that), so when Venkman arrives for their date and notices the change in her, he decides to mess around with the situation. He says things like, “That’s a new look for you, isn’t it?” and when he asks “Zuul” if he can talk to Dana to which he gets a response in a deep demonic voice, he responds, “What a lovely singing voice you have.”

And the rest of the movie goes on like that, which is fascinating in the way that these actors are game and funny enough to make a movie like this work. This of course leads to a climax in which the Ghostbusters must stand up against a shape-shifting god of destruction, and the film never allows the special-effects to reduce the actors. There are still plenty of funny lines said by the heroes to keep things interesting and funny, and the special-effects come to their assistance in the final battle whose key to its success is an effect that is an absolutely hilarious visual gag. (Those who have seen the movie know what I’m talking about.)

Also, I should add that the Ghostbusters don’t act as if this is the “grand adventure” they’re supposed to be doing in the way other characters act in other special-effects movies. Instead, it feels as if they’re just simply winging it and making things up as they go along, which is a clever move. Sure, they’re intelligent and bright, but they don’t always know what they’re doing and they are genuinely funny.

The dialogue in “Ghostbusters,” with a screenplay written by Aykroyd and Ramis themselves, is utterly hilarious. I could listen to these characters speak even longer than the film’s running time if I thought they could come up with enough wit, irony, skepticism, and merry goofiness to keep going. I don’t know how many people who’ve seen this movie can’t quote less than ten memorable lines from the movie. Or how about 20?

Bill Murray is excellent in this movie. He’s hilarious throughout, as his Venkman is more the wise-guy of the group. His deadpan delivery practically makes this movie, as he gets most of the best lines—his reaction to Dana telling the Ghostbusters about her refrigerator being haunted by Zuul: “Generally, you don’t see that kind of behavior in a major appliance.” Dan Aykroyd is enjoyable as the cheerful scientist who takes every bit of phenomena with joy. Harold Ramis, probably the drier wit of the group, is suitably witty as the smartest member. All three are terrific in their low-key, funny performances. The supporting cast is game as well. Sigourney Weaver does what she’s required to do, and having to act possessed and ultimately come on to Murray in a seductive manner is quite amusing. Even better are Rick Moranis as Dana’s nerdy neighbor who has his own encounter with the supernatural; the calm, cool presence of Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddemore who joins the Ghostbusters later in the film (he says he’ll believe in the supernatural “if there’s a steady paycheck in it”); and Annie Potts as the Ghostbusters’ deadpan secretary. There’s also William Atherton who is beyond over-the-top as Walter Peck, an environmentalist who wants to shut the Ghostbusters down and will take no bullcrap, even as Murray puts him down.

“Ghostbusters” is a sly, very funny and enjoyable movie that is fun to watch and even more fun to listen to. I tell you, I could quote practically the entire movie with a few friends if the time came. This is one of my favorite comedies; I’ve seen it a hundred times before, and I’ll probably see it a hundred more times in the future.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

(Originally reviewed early 2010)

“Avatar” is an extraordinary spectacle to behold—a film with the same kind of science-fiction/fantasy heart and energy that made “Star Wars” and “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy hits. James Cameron (director of the Terminator movies and “Titanic”) takes a story and fills it with amazing sights and gives “Avatar” a lot more than people would expect from him.

The film is set in the year 2154. U.S. Armed forces are set on a mission to an earth-sized moon called Pandora to locate a rare piece of mineral that the Earth desperately needs. The natives on Pandora are the Na’Vi, 12-ft. tall blue-skinned beings who respect their environment. They do not present a threat to Earth but nevertheless, the Armed forces are planning to attack them and retrieve that rare mineral that is somewhere in their dwelling. To venture out of their drafts, the people use avatars—Na’Vi lookalikes that are genetically created from observing the natives and are mind-controlled by humans, whose bodies still lay inside a machine in a trance-like state.

This new breakthrough is amazing to the hero Jake Sully (Sam Worthington). Jake is a paraplegic assigned on the mission because he is a genetic match for his dead identical twin, who already had an avatar ready for him. With this new body he inhabits, he can walk and run again. He can also venture out into the Pandora wilderness. Technically, there is no danger for him. If his avatar is destroyed, the human mind returns to its own body unharmed. Maybe.

“Avatar” is mostly about Jake as he changes his life on Pandora. First he’s a good soldier who wants to go along with the group. But then not much later, a series of events happens and he becomes a Na’Vi native. He befriends a female native named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), who saved his life. He learns that the Na’Vi, who live in an enormous tree, are in harmony with nature and survive only because they know their planet well. To get around, they are forced to tame wild creatures, much like the Native Americans. In this case, they tame dragons that can be controlled once its tail and a Na’Vi’s tail are connected together. Strange.

Then the film sets into darker territory. The Armed forces are prepared to attack, given orders by the ruthless, aggressive Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephan Lang, who really lets it all out with this performance). We get many battle/action sequences, but these have purpose. “Avatar” has already established the characters so we fear for them. These scenes are powerful and frightening and well-handled. The movie is full of scenes that fall into those three adjectives. I can also add “amazing” in the scene in which Jake tames a dragon-like beast and later flies on it. That is a great sequence. It works even better in 3-D. 3-D is starting to become a trend nowadays but I watched this film in IMAX True 3-D and found myself (I’m not kidding) holding on to my own seat. 3-D works best when the film shown in 3-D gives us amazing-looking flying sequences. We can experience the flight ourselves while watching it.

The film looks great. “Avatar” is not only a sensational entertainment but also a technical breakthrough. Pandora was created by a large amount of CGI and it looks fantastic. We haven’t seen this place before; we would love to return someday. The Na’Vi are created by using real human actors in motion-capture technology. All is done convincingly—that is most important when working with technology like this. The Na’Vi look like unique individuals and give Cameron and the artists a lot of credit for making Neytiri, a female blue-skinned, golden-eyed giantess, look beautiful. Another pleasure in the movie is the relationship that builds up when Jake and Neytiri train together and learn to trust each other and even love each other. This is very risky to pull off, especially once you consider what would happen if Neytiri found out Jake’s body was only an avatar. But it works here. I loved watching these two together.

The film is 163 minutes. I have to admit, I never checked my watch—that’s a good sign. Though I also must admit, I thought the movie was going to end about an hour-and-a-half into the movie (that’s just a guess). But no, I was given an hour of more amazing visuals and more interesting story to experience. The running time of 163 minutes doesn’t seem like a long time. “Avatar” interested me from beginning to end.

James Cameron has done it again. This is his first film since “Titanic” twelve years ago and he spent all that time developing this project. He never took a step wrong. “Avatar” is one of the best films of 2009. Maybe James Cameron really is “king of the world.”

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Jeff Nichols is undoubtedly one of the best modern filmmakers of our time. He obviously cares deeply for film and filmmaking, which was clear evidence in 2008’s “Shotgun Stories” and 2011’s “Take Shelter” (both of which are different yet excellent films), and doesn’t always go for the easy way out, yet finds new ways to satisfy audiences. So when I found out that his third feature, “Mud,” was aimed for more mainstream appeal, I was wondering if he would stoop to the new low that David Gordon Green (another visionary filmmaker who began in the indie circuit) took with his stoner comedies. And for the record, I know Green’s latest films have their audiences, and maybe they were the kind of films he wanted to make all along. Maybe “Mud” was the kind of film that Nichols wanted to make while he was making his other films to give himself an image in order to do so; but either way there is to look at it, his move into the mainstream is welcome with this film.

I love this film. This might be the kind of movie that Nichols wanted to make for a long time, but this is also the kind of movie that I would love to make. It’s a coming-of-age story in a nontraditional sense, using elements of adventure to tell the story of two young boys learning some important life lessons. Another such film is 1986’s “Stand by Me,” which was one of my main influences to become a film critic and a filmmaker. There’s just something so engaging about a coming-of-age adventure such as this.

“Mud” takes place in the Arkansas Delta, near the White and Mississippi rivers, giving the film its great deal of Southern grittiness. Our main characters are two 14-year-old boys—Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland)—who spend their days riding a dirt bike and using a skiff to explore the Mississippi. They come across an island in which a boat is lodged high up in a tree, due to a flood. But they find that the boat is inhabited by a ragged-looking man named Mud (Matthew McConaughey).

Mud may be homeless, hiding out on the island, and he does carry a gun for “protection,” but he comes off as unthreatening to the boys, telling them tales of superstition (nails in the shape of crosses in his boot-heels, his white shirt representing “good luck,” his snake tattoo representing “bad luck,” etc.) and about his love who is supposedly coming to meet him so they can escape together. Ellis and Neckbone decide to help him out, bringing him food and running a few errands for Mud in town, which includes finding his girlfriend, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), and bringing her messages from him.

The main reason Ellis wants to help Mud and Juniper get back together is because he still wants to believe that true love still exists, despite the upcoming divorce his parents will go through. He wants something to believe in, and so he does what he can to make sure it follows through. The fact that Mud killed a man to protect Juniper doesn’t decrease his intrigue; if anything, it increases it.

Mud’s devotion to Juniper also mirrors that of Ellis’ infatuation with an older girl, May Pearl (Bonnie Sterdivant). After Ellis defends her honor by punching out a high-school senior, she lets him take her out on a date, which doesn’t lead to what he would hope for. Without giving too much away, his disappointment to a certain reveal about her is heartbreaking, because I think we all went through something like that in our young lives. And it does fit into the adult-romance that Mud and Juniper should have while there’s a high chance that things aren’t exactly what they should be.

This new look upon reality, which Ellis is starting to realize, is what makes “Mud” an effective drama, as well as an adventure story. His interaction with Mud increases his self-esteem and the pride he feels in what he feels he should do. He also learns some harsh truths that Mud learned the hard way, giving this character much room to grow. By the end of the story, Ellis has learned some important things about life (which is the case for any coming-of-age tale), while Neckbone is more or less the same adventurous boy he was at the beginning of the story, and so that leaves an interesting contrast between the two boys. This didn’t necessarily have to be a coming-of-age tale involving two boys; just one is enough, while the other is suitable for the “adventure” element.

Speaking of which, things get even more dangerous when the boys encounter a nasty bounty hunter (Stuart Greer) who is seeking vengeance against Mud (the man Mud killed turned out to be his brother) along with a posse led by his father (Joe Don Baker). They keep close watch on Juniper, believing that she’ll lead them to him, and so Ellis and Neckbone must plan a sneaky way to get her back to Mud.

Matthew McConaughey is receiving well-deserved praise for his strong, memorable portrayal of a man who has risked (and is still risking) everything for who he believes is his soulmate and truly believes he’ll figure something out with each misstep. He’s truly brilliant here. But the real stars of “Mud” are the two excellent young actors playing Ellis and Neckbone. Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland are already labeled as resembling Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn in their performances, and deservedly so (this is a Mark Twain type of story). Sheridan’s Ellis is more enlightened and thoughtful while Lofland’s Neckbone is more outgoing and defiant (and he also provides some funny moments as well). The blend of these two is excellent and is played in an entirely credible way.

This is more of the boys’ story as they are the main focus, though the adult characters (aside from Mud) play pivotal roles in their tale. Reese Witherspoon’s role of Juniper is more complicated than just being a “soulmate” and there manages to be more complexity implied than actually stated; Sarah Paulsen and Ray McKinnon are convincing as Ellis’ squabbling parents who each try to give Ellis further outlook about growing up; the bounty hunters, led by Joe Don Baker and Stuart Greer, are given a specific purpose of vengeance for the man Mud killed; and we also get Sam Shepard as Tom Blankenship, Ellis’ neighbor who has a past connection with Mud.

Oh, and there’s also Neckbone’s uncle and guardian, played by Michael Shannon (a regular for Jeff Nichols’ films). He’s pretty much an overgrown teenager who slacks off and plays “Help Me Rhonda” (by The Beach Boys) during sex with random women. And…that’s about it. Aside from one little talk to Ellis about how Neckbone looks up to him, he really serves no purpose to the story. I think if you remove his scenes in the editing room, you wouldn’t miss anything. But I’ll let it slide because he is quite solid in the role, and frankly it is good to see him in a Jeff Nichols film.

The look and feel of the Arkansas Delta is captured perfectly. As someone who has spent a majority of his life so far in an Arkansan small town, a sense of familiarity overcame me. The small town; the boondocks; the landscapes. I felt like I wasn’t too far from home. And for anybody, with the way the film captures this particular essence, those who live in large cities are most likely to notice the vividness of atmosphere.

“Mud” is a wonderful film, and yet another winner in Jeff Nichols’ great résumé. This is further proof that Jeff Nichols is one of the most impressive filmmakers of our time. I love his films, and I eagerly await his next project.

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Indiana Jones could be considered a James Bond type, in that he goes through a series of improbable adventures that are great, deadly fun for audiences. He proved that first in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” which became a huge hit because of its style, taste for adventure, and a new hero named Indiana Jones. Then because of its success, it was inevitable in that there would be a sequel—“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.”

“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” delivers gripping action, suspense, and great fun and Steven Spielberg never shies away from creating a movie with a series of climactic battles and daring adventures, rescues, and escapes. This movie features a temple, human sacrifice, magical stones, a mine-car roller-coaster, and much more. I heard in an interview with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg that they used everything they couldn’t use in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” to bring “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” to life. I can only imagine what a movie with all of those elements in both films would be like.

In an opening scene, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is caught in a trap in a night club in Shanghai and flees with his enemy’s girlfriend—an American singer named Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), whose main purpose in this movie is to accompany the hero in his adventure and mainly just scream a lot (and that’s exactly what she does—boy, can she scream). Indy, along with Willie and his energetic, pint-sized partner Short Round (Ke Huy Quan), are forced to jump out of a plane (on a life raft) and wind up in India, where they come across a ruined village. The children from this village and a magic rock that keeps the village safe are missing and the elders believe that an evil tribe called the Thuggee Cult is responsible for this.

And so, Indy, with Short Round and Willie (really not thrilled about this adventure) in tow, sets out to Pankot Palace to try to piece together this puzzle. This leads them to the discovery of the underground Temple of Doom, in which the Thuggee Cult sacrifices nonbelievers to their evil deity into a fiery pit. As is the case for movies like this, it’s the hero’s job to sneak in, grab the treasure, and sneak out without being seen. But it’s not going to be easy here. The second half of this movie, which involves the heroes in the Temple of Doom and trying to get out, delivers a great deal of suspense, danger, adventure, terror, and an excellent chase sequence in a mine. They are always inches away from certain death.

“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” delivers just what you ask for. You accept what you can get from this movie—I accepted it, therefore I give it four stars. This is just as much fun as any of the earlier Sean Connery-James Bond pictures. It’s interesting how the first half is about explanation, wonders, and weirdness—especially a dinner scene, in which chilled monkey brains and soup with eyeballs floating to the top are served—and how the second half pays them off with a breathtaking series of adventures.

The set design for the Temple of Doom is just outstanding. It looks almost like how hell could be pictured, with all the fire and caves. This set alone is arguably more impressive than any set piece in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

I loved “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” for what it is—a great thrill ride. Like I said, there’s nothing more or less within its own storytelling and its characters—Willie stays whiny, Short Round stays energetic—but it’s a fun, escapist movie that is a strong sequel to “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

NOTE: I should also mention that it is darker than the predecessor, much like how “The Empire Strikes Back” was darker than “Star Wars.” This is PG, but it shows children being abused and used as slaves in that Temple and hearts being ripped out of people’s bodies. This is not for small children.