Change Your Image
mozartzbitch
Reviews
The Broadway Melody (1929)
Little more than an excuse for songs, but for the right viewer, that's fine
"The Broadway Melody" certainly has the obvious handicap to holding up; in that, it's 82 year old; but it still is a worthwhile view for lovers of either film, theater, music, or particularly musical theater. I, being passionate about all of those would be an ideal candidate to watch it. Thus with my appreciation for nostalgia no matter how ancient it may become, should be a prime target for this film today if there are any targets for it. Nevertheless, even as a nostalgic piece, the film still makes it off of others issues besides its writing. The plot is nothing stellar, the characters work well into the plot but aren't incredibly complex, and some of the outcomes can feel too contrived. Even for 1929, the film makes it off of novel breakthroughs for its time such as its catch music and its appropriate integration of music into the story.
If the "Broadway Melody" deserves credit for nothing else, it deserves credit for bringing musical theater genre to film. It is even mildly disputable as to whether everyone would consider it a musical today or not. It naturally implements songs into the story, but the use of songs lacks the escapist element necessary to a true musical. Christopher Walken describes Gene Kelly as a master of performance who sang when he didn't feel words were strong enough spoken, and danced when words were meaningless. The songs in this film are all during scenes in which they show the film is about is being performed or when the writer of the songs is presenting his songs to someone openly. There are certainly no musical numbers that play on the obvious plot hole musical theater should lend itself to, leaving audience members asking how every person surrounding knows how to perfect perform in sync with each other. Most of the songs are solo songs anyway, with brief duet, trio, or chorus moments perhaps. It is basically a musical to the same extent that "The Great Ziegfeld" is or to the extent that "Topsy Turvy" is an operetta. Regardless of the implementation however, that songs illustrate the characters and pace the film nicely. The songs don't necessarily expand the plot the way musicals' songs generally should, but they do elevate characters' revelations at points, especially Eddie's lament to Queenie. Perhaps however, it was to the film's credit that it didn't immediately switch to true escapism when the movie was made. Musical theater escapism is always very tricky in cinema. Creating an atmosphere in which the audience really feels like the characters are singing and thus the viewers can feel attached to the moment is quite difficult in the more realistic setting film frequently calls for. Such handicaps have especially been prominent with film occasional exceptions such as Chicago in recent years, but the live-action musical theater scene has not been a too marketable since the 1960's in light of such difficulties.
"Broadway Melody" does not have a bad plot, but it does not have a particular novel one either. The plot allows conceivable conflict, but works little at all more your generic hallmark writing ploy. Film may have been still fairly new in 1929, but theater sure was not. The plot does not have the excuse of its outdated platitudes. Hank and Queenie Mahoney are sisters who have been doing a successful vaudeville duo act for a while now until Hank's boyfriend Eddie Kearns writes them both into his new show, "The Broadway Melody", getting them the chance to become stars in the big apple itself. As it turns out however, the real woman Eddie is in love with is Queenie, not Hank especially as Queenie becomes a bigger and bigger star on the stage. As Queenie becomes successful enough, a sleazy agent name Jack Wariner makes a pass at her, evidently using her to promote himself. While Queenie knows he's using her, she can't bring herself to express her true feelings for Eddie and cause conflict between herself and her sister. The outcome is nothing stellar; in fact, there are some details I will not spoil the movie and reveal, but that make the outcome less than masterful.
This film is entertaining with enough going for it to fill 100 minutes of your life. The songs are catchy, the characters are likable, and the cast gives appropriate treatment to each conflict and resolution. The writing is nothing to shout about all though. The script is essentially an excuse to implement Nacio Herb Brown and Arthur Freed's numbers. To the extent that it brought musical theater to cinema and broadened the potential of sound, it is a valiant effort to film history. It is thus, worth seeing for lovers of film or musical theater if not for the sake of marvelous entertainment, that sheer indulgence at the very least.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Not really worth your time, but check it out for amusement's sake if you wish.
Well this summer blockbuster has more than begun, and has yet to give me positive results. With the excessively tongue-and-cheek rubbish Iron Man brought forth, and the anemic, hashed up rendition of Prince Caspian; I though Hollywood was finally ready proclaim this holiday season with Indiana Jones and Kingdom of The Crystal Skull. I was wrong. While all three of the films I have listed off in this article have had merit as pieces of film-making, they were all seriously flawed beyond their levels of praise.
This forth installment of the Indiana Jones film franchise was believed for much time to just be another rumor George Lucas conceived in attempt to keep his name highly linked in the Calendar media. Some believed after a while, this back when the Star Wars prequels were spoken of for so long. And yet one day, the Star Wars prequels came. And what was the response? Let's just say, less than stellar. This forth Indiana Jones was actually weak for similar reasons as the Star Wars prequel set. The greatest flaw in Kingdom the Crystal Skull is a series of misplace energy. The original Jones trilogy was lauded for its marvelous action sequences that absolutely mesmerized viewers like no action had ever done before and some would some would say no action film has done since. This was plagued with petty one-lines ("I like Ike"?); excessively misplaced humor attempts (what was with the CGI rodents at the beginning?) and rather anemic action sequences. There are a couple scenes in which Indy enters a temple or kingdom with his son (yes, Indy's a Dad now), his double-crossing sidekick, Marian, and the man possessed by the crystal skull; and they're attacked by these peculiar Peruvian guards. There is a fairly exciting chase and a fairly exciting fighting sequence in the opening scene in the U.S. base; but neither of the scenes contain anywhere near the energy level empowered from the original trilogy.
The best I could describe this film as is a well-intentioned mixture of all the different attributes to the original three films. It contains moderately well-developed friendships, a rebuilt romance, documented historical fiction, and a climax that doesn't rely on battles so much as intense visuals. But take a scene such as the returning of the crystal into the kingdom. Yeah, I mean the G-ds attacking an all was exciting, but it could not compare to the climax of Raiders of The Lost Ark, which this scene was plainly obviously trying to replicate. The development of chemistry between Indy and Mutt was nothing compared to Last Crusade and Indy growing to genuinely love his father at long last and vice-versa. Ford was certainly better 19 years ago, playing Connery than off LeBouf now. Ford also played much better off of Karen Allen 27 years ago than he does now. The rebuilding (AGAIN MIGHT I ADD?!?!?!?!?!) of Indy and Marian has bad sequel written all over it. It's a got a nice touch in the end, but it was much more realistic in Te Raiders of the Lost Ark.
So in short, this film is a decent piece of entertainment, but little if anything more. It will sell tickets on its name brand not its quality. I say stick to the originals. Check this one out for curiosity's sake, but the good old trilogy can't be beaten.
Moonraker (1979)
Band all but at his worst
Mediocre plot + dry characters= Not worth your time.
The James Bond franchise has so many films you can't go wrong with, that there is no need to waste your time with rubbish like this. In this film, the central villain is Hugo Draxx; a billionaire whose works is in space exploration and plotting to poison all of the Earth except for those he deems worthy of living. Sounds like a cliché for Bond to me. The haphazard attempt a decent plot sets this film off on the wrong foot and it goes down hill from there.
To me, the greatest problem with this film is the poorly incorporated camp. The humor does not fit with the action. For instance, when James Bond is riding the Gondola through Venice, viewers are supposed to laugh at the absurdity of that while he acts all casual and all the citizens noticing it are stunned. They're not running from a huge Kyac; they're staring in shock. The sex scene with Bond and his chic for this film when they lose gravity truly sets the tone for how dull this film's humor attempts are.
Why Ian? Please say you only used this book because you though you'd used the best up when Connery was Bond.
Superman Returns (2006)
Flawed, but thoroughly entertaining
There is a wonderful form of escapism that a good comic book movie should bring. I mean a type in which you do not sit around and attempt to nit-pick some of the trivial questions to cheapen the film's authenticity. Superman Returns captures that emotion perfectly. By no means does this film feel like a fairy tale, but but it it lets you sit back and smile. In short, this is great film to see for pure entertainment.
This film is not perfect, but it is still very fulfilling. Some can criticize it for being a bit too fast paced at first or for getting a bit too sappy towards the end. The film however, makes up for this with its beautiful action, masterful villainy, strong acting, and solid character development. Overall, it is fun for anyone who just feels like watching a movie for the sake of having a good time.
TINY SPOILERS Starting with the actors, the first observation you can draw is that they all had fun. They all felt an attachment to their characters. Brandon Roeth truly became Superman and Clark Kent perfectly. He was able to make Kent into a caring man who means well both as Clark Kent and Superman. As Clark Kent, the greatest challenge of his is coping with the reality that his romantic life with Lois is be over. Upon coping with Lois as a mother who has moved from her Superman/Clark days he must learn to accept this loss that came with his reasons for leaving. As Superman however, he still realizes the significance in his role as a world savior who must bring Metropolis and the world back in order. That is where the best performance comes in with Kevin Spacey as Lex. Now this was a spectacular performance as expected. Did he play Kevin Spacey? Yes and no. Again, he did his generic act in many parts; a sarcastically energetic, smart-Alec. His passion for genuinely insulting everything was very prominent in this role. Thst element worked well for the part, but playing another Lester Burnham was not the reason I liked him. He manages to bring both the evil element as Lex and the comical element. Things as simple as calling Lois' name while he is brushing his teeth gave him a charmingly evil persona. He also brought the right element of naive arrogance I think comic book super villains typically need. He manages to play a character who can beat Superman and does in fact come seriously close, but can not quite manage. The weakest acting performance, I felt was Kate Bosworth. I did not mind her, but she did not manage to replace Margot Kidder in my eyes. Christoper Reeve and Gene Hackman did performances I will always appreciate and love, but Roeth and Spacey were comparable if not superior to them. Bosworth could not say the same. Her performance was not bad, but it was nothing more than I would have expected. I like the static development of Lois in the film, but Boswarth I felt was too much one emotion by one. First she was bitter and sad in denial; then she was irritatingly motherly (and wait until you see her son in this movie). I never really felt much for her though. Then of course, Lex needs to have a really annoying side kick. Can I blame Parker Posey for her performance? Bryan Singer wanted a character to seriously irritate the audience. It worked. Was she funny? Not really. Spacey played well off of her though, so she was fine.
The plot? It's Superman. What do you want, an Oscar-caliber screenplay? Lex wants to sink the United States by creating a new entire continent that he will raise out of the water with with crystals to sell land and create fear in the rest of the world. He is a bitter man who has inherited the entire estate of an incredibly wealth woman who has just died. And now he needs more money. I guess he is not a man to believe that the best revenge is living well. Sounds like a Superman plot to me.
The best part of the film is the action. Every shot of Superman flying to the rescue whether he is saving a plane or taking out criminals is fabulous. Yes, you know Superman can accomplish any of these tasks in a pinch. The most exciting element of each action sequence is waiting for him to appear. The the action scenes will just make you want to cheer along with everyone else watching.
The first major weakness in the film was less of a problem than I thought it was going to be at first. The first few major elements of what Kevin Dougherty wanted to cover in the story felt a little rushed. I felt that Superman just reappeared to quickly. I like the plot in a film to really get going after I get a solid attachment to the characters. This film is still a follow-up to 80's Superman movies, but that franchise had been on hiatus for nineteen years. It was worth reintroducing the plot a tad more. This however, became less problematic as the film developed and got more into the new material.
The film's greatest weakness was the sap; especially toward the end with with everyone'es emotional love for Superman they showed. As far as specific detail, that is for you the reader to find by watching the film.
I loved this film as a whole! It was exciting, and thoroughly fulfilling in virtually all the crucial elements of a fun action film. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes campy action and fun characters. Overall rating 8/10
Walk the Line (2005)
I've seen better
There are many people who thought this was a fabulous piece of work, but I'm not one of them. I respect other people's opinions, but I just saw it as a flat, old-fashioned biographical film. It really did not offer any real gripping stories, that I have not seen in biographical films before, there was little room I felt, to really like or dislike the lead characters. It was pretty much a standard love story with really good music, and strong acting performances. The music is enough for some recognition for this film. I can not argue with the authenticity of the music which made this film appealing throughout. Granted of course though, just get a Johnny Cash album for that. I don't drive to Vegas to see Elvis impersonators only. Recordings of the real Elvis or Johnny Cahs are hardly that heavily in demand. If you want to capture the different loks on the music being made, that is another story. Granted though, I thought that was extremely watered down. For the most part, this film is a total ripoff on the film that inspired it, "Ray." "Walk the Line" deals with the same primary issues of the lead that "Ray" deals with (i.e. the scandal, negligent family man, origin of artist finding unique sound, etc.). One scene I thought was done very poorly in this film which was inspired by a similar scene in Ray is when Cash and his two performers audition at the sound recording place and the producers finds their sound boring because it is the same old thing. And the scene gradually turns into him doing something really spectacular with his music. It was absolutely watered down with minimal energy. This level of energy remained constant throughout the film. The best part of the film was the acting. I can not deny that the acting n this film was absolutely fabulous and kept the film. Both Joachin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon absolutely became their characters. It was not an impersonation. They really were the characters. Witherspoon's Oscar was completely deserved. Since I have not Capote, I can not completely against Phoenix not receiving the Oscar, but he sure could have won and wold have deserved it. Overall, this film was at best, a little more than decent. Cash fans, enjoy. Phoenix fans, watch Gladiator. Witherspoons fans, Watch Legally Blonde or Vanity Fair.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
A masterful adaption
I do not have the attachment to the books which so many of their fans do. I have read LW&W and I have read Magician's Nephew. This film adaption of LW&W was virtually my picture perfect interpretation of it though, which made it so much more fulfilling to sit through.
As a piece of film-making, it is a product of its era. Where as this film has been inspired to day from the Lord of the Rings films and the Harry Potter films, LW&W captures the perfect medium between those two film series'; in that, it has a mildly dark, riveting use of directing (ala Lord of The Rings) but still maintains that wonderful childlike escapism the Harry Potter films have not quite so successfully fulfilled. MR. Timnus for instance, is really just a lovable, scared, little boy. He is a loyal and cheery fellow with brilliant chemistry toward Lucy. You truly feel sorry for him while the White Witch torments him. Meanwhile, the White Witch is truly awful. Tilda Swinton really makes you hate her the entire time, and she masters that evil so well. Even when she is winning over Peter, you can tell she is evil. It is creepy, but it works. Then when she shows her evil to Peter, you see her in the most rotten of form.
The visuals in this film are done perfectly. They are beautiful and not distracting. The animals sure look real, but this film will not make you think of Babe. The wolves terrify the audience when they move across the screen. Mr. Fox meanwhile, never looks phony. The interpretation of Narnia is as magical as any visual C.S. Lewis could have created. It is snowy and would seem like a marvelous paradise to someone who has never been there, but an evil and cold place to those who live there.
In all ways, this film is a must see for any lover of fantasy. It is both exciting, and heart-warming. The characters all play off each other perfectly, and then extra scenes not included in the book make this film flow perfectly. 9/10
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
The Circle is now complete
This is not Lucas' finest, but after seeing what he had to offer for the first of the prequels, that is still an improvement. George Lucas insisted and insisted that he put nine hours a day into writing this film, and wanted a really great product for Star Wars fans to bid farewell to the saga with. Does it match up to original trilogy? No. Is is still worth seeing? Yes. Is it worth seeing several times? I would say so. It answers the most important questions to lead into episode IV. It definitely has some excellent action sequences, combined with eye-popping visuals. And unlike past Star Wars films, Lucas does not make the visual extraneous. They are all over the place, but still solid. The major downfall of this film is the characters. The truth is that you just need Luke, Han and Leia to truly make Star Wars Star Wars. The characters in all the prequels including this one just go through the motions. Compare Padme to Leia. Leia is strong, and fights for the common good with devotion and love for humanity. An occasional smart-Alec line decorates her still loyal determination to the rebellion. Padme is basically in love with Anakin in this film still, and just naively lets Anakin decay into Darth Vader. She is constantly asking him to be more honest with her about everything, and just sits back and worries. Leai would join thfight. Padme just waits around and worries. I was worried she was gonna get suckered into suffering Anakin's fate. At least she has some sense. Yes, you do feel sad when Anakin becomes Darth Vader. It is is especially sad from the perspective of Obi-Wan, and even more so from the perspective of Padme. But I never really felt a great attachment to their romance entering the film, so there was not enough to feel. Still, Natalie Portman does her most with Padme. Not bad for a girl who admittedly grew up, hating Star Wars. Ewan McGregor is definitely Obi-Wan. Everythng about Obi-Wan you envision is in Ewan McGregor. There is a look of loyalty and devotion. And you know he is a character who is determined to preserving the good for all the galaxy. Hayden Crhistansen has shown he knows how to act. He is better off playing a dark, angry, and nearly insane character than he is at playing a winy teenager. And the ways in which you see Chancellor Palpatine seduce Anakin without him even knowing it is eerily appealing. The weakest character was General Grievous. And then, you have Yoda. He becomes interesting at then when he leaves, realizing that he has failed the Jedi council with Anakin, but he is mainly just a pawn in the film. He was exciting to watch fight, but was bland theatrically. There's no other way of putting it. In short though, all the characters just interact with each other to the minimal use. There is no real rapport you feel with with any of them. The action and visual effects were the best in this film. All the shots on Coruscant, Kashyyk, and in space were fabulous. Just give me some more lightsaber duals. The oh so anticipated dual between Obi-Wan and Anakin may not meet up to everyone's expectations, but how could it with that much hype? I mean the dual was quite intense though. The lava sequence, which ends in Anakin almost melting is truly awesome. And it does not get so ghoury, that they are trying to make this a PG-13 movie. The most disappointing fight was between Cont Dooku and Anakin/ Ob-Wan at the beginning. I won't spoil the film with details, but it lacked energy. That is the most I will say. All the battles in the fighters are solid. Do not expect ti be like those in the original trilogy. The republic has some new surprises to use. All in all, the film works. It is not to be classified alongside the original trilogy. Whatever happens, those were three remarkable pieces of film-making that will never be replicated. The force was stronger than ever with George from 1977-1983. But don't let that say that he can not still make a good movie. And now Lucas, I say bring on Indiana Jones IV.
Fridays (1980)
It's not SNL, but it will due
Ever since seeing "Man On The Moon" in theaters when I was sixteen, I have been eager to see an episode of the show "Fridays."
By chance, the episode I saw was Andy Kauffman's infamous visit. It's weird to watch since I know it was in fact staged, and knew that before watching it. IT was still appealing though.
Interestingly, this show tells me the story of one hell of rough back-fire. You see, when ABC originally produced "Fridays" in 1980, they thought this show was the answer to "Saturday Night Live." Now first of all. But worst yet, two of the stars on it were Michael Richards and Larry David. Both stars who would go on to work together on "Seinfeld." This show was how they originally met. So in attempt to compete with NBC, ABC attempted a similar format and not only failed at competing, but they contributed what would lead to the making of Seinfeld; another NBC hit.
Having Watched Fridays, here is my observastion on it. It's funny at times. It's not an ingenious piece of writing and was pretty much what I was expecting. It is actually more like SNL than I was expecting though. The format is almost identical. The special guest star leads off the show to make a few cracks, and then the first skit is underway shortly after. Halfway through the show, a band performs. A few more skits take place before the band comes back. Also in the middle, there is a weekend update. It's called the Friday edition. Like the SNL weekend update, it has a smart allecky commentator who makes a bunch of scripted quirks with some shots for gags too. It's fairly obvious that the writers are of this show are all left-wing, and that at least a couple of the writers are Jewish. The highlight skit I saw was the Social Majority Show. The song was absolutely hilarious. The reverend was mildly comical at moments, but the show as a whole was lacking something. I guess it's just too much of an SNL wanna-be, and not original enough for my taste.
Batman and Robin (1949)
Just pure comic-book fun!
There are different ways in which to do a comic book movie. The style which this film goes for is a campy comic style. And by that, I mean it does not try to be literary gem. It just has a solid story with memorable characters, and some great action sequences. At least one really solid action sequence can be found in each episode. And the ending has cool twist.
First off, Batman and Robin are both done perfectly. Robert Lowery and John Duncan play off of each otehr perfectly. There is a sway of personalities between Batman and Bruce Wayne and for Robin and Dick Grayson which this film has the right look on. They make Bruce and Dick very charming characters with distinct personalities that are contrary enough to Batman and Robin. Then there is Vikki Vale. Here, the writers could have truly given into Hollywood writing and had more of a love story between Bruce and Vikki, but instead they focused more the main story. Good idea. They also tie Vikki well into the story, having her brother as a villain you sometimes do; sometimes don't root for. The villainy is excellent. I love the Wizard. He is so creepy and diabolical. He is vulnerable, but exceptionally intelligent as well. And really his intelligence it his greatest ally. He makes good use of the machines he steals especially when he uses the neutralizer and the beaming machine to make himself invisible. But Batamn is also realistically capable of catching onto his plans.
I have heard this film compared to the campy Adam West stuff of the 1960's. Do not expect to see Adam West and Burt Ward in different colored tights, using the most far-fetched gadgets imaginable, and solving the most far-fetched puzzles. I love that Batman version, but this is not the same. This film is campy, but nowhere near that campy. I think theses serials are better off being compared to the Spiderman movies. In that, they are both meant to be viewed for fun and little if anything else, but are not nearly as over-the-top as the 1960's Batman stuff. MINOR SPOILER There is one scene in the film in which Batman and Robin and running out of air. Batman pulls out two oxygen pipes and gives one of them to Robin. Yeah, that's a little far-fetched, but at least he uses it again later. And from that, you can honestly believe that Batman and Robin figured they may need an oxygen pipe and they find uses for it throughout the serial. As opposed to some absolutely chessy gadgets from the 60's Batman like shark-repellent Bat Spray, or the Batcave's nuclear power source.
SPOILER
This serial has a neat twist revealing the Wizard's identity. It seems completely obvious that Professor Hamill is the Wizard. In fact, watching it the first time, I just thought you were supposed to know that. I did not even realize that it was meant to be a mystery. But then, once I realized it was Carter, I saw how all the pieces fit. And it gave a completely different look on sll the scenes with the minor character Carter seemed to be. I thought the thing about his twin-brother getting shot was kind of cheesy. It would have made more sense if I knew that Carter had a twin brother, but short of that, it was a neat literary twist.
END OF SPOILER
As a whole though, this is just a really good serial to sit back and enjoy. If you like Batman (particulalry the comics) this is very much for you. I highly recommend it.
Our Town (1940)
I doubt Wilder approved of this, because I sure did not
This film comes so close to being a masterpiece. The acting gives a true feeling of simple life, the characters are portrayed just as they should, and you really feel (as viewer) like you are part of the story. But sometimes, close does not cut it.
SPOILERS
If you grew up loving "Our Town" as it is written and performed on stage, you are out of luck with this movie. This is not because the movie changes the story completely. In fact, it is almost identical to the original story. But I emphasize the word "almost." Here is a little piece of information for anyone who has never seen a stage production of it or read the play, but has seen the movie. EMILY DIES!!!!!!!!! It was not a dream!!!!!!!! Hollywood drama infuriates me with this type of stuff. I am glad Thorton Wilder lived to see his masterpiece brought to life, but I can not believe that he was at all happy to see his masterpiece butchered in this one way. I would not be the least bit surprised to find that he sat through the whole movie, and enjoyed all of it until he found that Emily's death was a dream. It is truly a shame because the rest of the film really demonstrated all of Wilder's idea on smalltown and simple minded life.
END OF SPOILER
If you are a purist of the play, I do not recommend this film. Otherwise, it is worth seeing for the social commentary. But I say you are better off reading the book or seeing it live.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
A classic, and most deservingly so
This film deserves every form of recognition it has received. A perfect mixture of breath-taking action, memorable heroes, delightfully evil villains, well-timed humor, and historical accuracy. Not that all the events in this film are true or that much of it is based on truth, but it is at least based both on real expeditions which Hitler sent Nazis on, and real biblical references to the ark of the covenant.
The highlight of the film is action sequences choreographed so beautifully by Spielberg. There is nothing action films have seen to top some of the sequences in this film. The action is not insanely gory or painful like in Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan. There is blood, but it is not that painful to watch. But the sequence from when Indy is stealing the ark from the plane to when he finally steals it from the truck; that sequence is an all time classic. It starts with a plane the Nazis intend to use to ship the ark to Cairo. Indy fights a plane mechanic first before an intense fist fight with a really bulky Nazi. In the middle, his girlfriend, Marion snags another plane and is shooting off attacking Nazis, and Indy is gradually beating the Nazi, before colliding him into the propeller of the plane right by them. Indy brakes out of the plane which is about to explode. You then see a huge explosion before the Nazi load the ark then onto a truck. You are given a few moments to catch your breath before Indy chase the truck down. The battle when he jumps onto that trunk as intense as anything film can offer you. He fights off Nazi after Nazi. He dangles from the side of the truck, and keeps knocking Nazis out left and right. He finally escapes with the truck and that is that. I know it needs to be seen to be appreciated, but it is the most excitement you could ask for if action is what you seek.
This film however, is more than just a strong action flick. It deals with extremely strong parallels of good versus evil. It really portrays the Nazis as these negligent villains, who seek the ark for nothing but access to a weapon. Indy meanwhile, truly seeks it to see it opened and look at what has been buried for thousands of years. And you see this massive army of trained soldiers with armed artillery who can not fend off one man and his whip and gun.
This is a must-see for all action lovers. And do not think that the film is outdated after 20 years. On technical level, it is. But first of all, the Oscar winning visuals are not outdated by that much; and secondly, what it lacks it lacks in that department it makes up for with timeless ingenious film-making.