Fists of Humiliation

FIST OF UNICORN aka Bruce Lee and I (1972)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

So the palms of Unicorn Chan are so powerful that once they make an impact on someone's chest, they kill the person. Not before Unicorn Chan starts thinking of his powerful palms does an image of Bruce Lee suddenly show up on screen as a double-exposure. And we get many scenes where Unicorn uses his arms more than his legs in a fight and then, as if Bruce Lee is suddenly speaking to him, the palms work their magic and kill the opponent.

Unicorn Chan is not much of an actor but he has the ability and grace of a natural fighter. His presence is not commanding, despite numerous close-ups. He plays some sort of bum who parades from one town to another and sleeps under bridges. Some kid notices him showing off his flips and jumps. Chan is welcome by the kid and his mother. There is trouble in the nearby town where the local hoodlums kill people left and right, and Japanese women are used as whores though some of them are actually Chinese pretending to be Japanese! Unicorn is humiliated by these men at one point when he is forced to crawl between one man's legs! Imagine Bruce Lee being humiliated like that! Then the kid cries and calls Unicorn a coward, and then he apologizes. We are also treated to two men who stutter throughout the film, and even try to one-up each other in a stuttering contest.

"Fist of Unicorn's" action scenes were choreographed by Bruce Lee as a favor to Unicorn Chan who helped Lee get his kung-fu feet planted in Hong Kong cinema. Lee might have taught Unicorn how to act as well. By the way, Lee can be glimpsed in the opening scenes showing off his prowess to Unicorn, though a double is obviously used! That means Lee had no intention to act in a scene with his own friend! Sacrilege! As for Unicorn Chan, little is known about him. This was his only leading role and it did nothing for his career. He appeared in some of Bruce Lee's films and did a brief cameo in "Bruce Lee: The Man, The Myth." Anyone that makes a film as abysmal as "Fist of Unicorn" might consider never making a film again. Who wants to be consistently humiliated?

Bruce Lee's comical buffoonery

RETURN OF THE DRAGON aka WAY OF THE DRAGON (1972)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I am a huge Bruce Lee fan. I always thought, and still do, that Bruce Lee was the greatest martial-arts fighter who ever graced the silver screen. "Return of the Dragon" was Lee's writing and directorial debut, as well as being the chief fight choreographer, and after the amazingly intense "The Chinese Connection," it seemed he could do no wrong. Well, Bruce Lee was an amazing fighter but not the most astute writer or director in the world.

Lee plays a country bumpkin named Tang Lung, whose services in the martial-arts are required in Rome. You see, Lung's relatives own a Chinese restaurant and the Mafia wants to control it. The owners refuse and so the chief Mafia goon's minions try to irritate them and beat them to a pulp. Not if Lung can help it, though the relatives are not so sure. But this is a Bruce Lee movie and you know Lee will get to fight at some point.

The action scenes are electric and tantalizing. Particularly memorable is Lee's handling of two nunchakus at once or his fight with an American martial-artist (Chuck Norris) at the Roman Coliseum. The fight scenes in general are so damn good that you wish it was in the service of a better story. There is a cruel twist in the final reel but not much else that is story driven. The Mafioso goons are hardly much of a threat. When the story doesn't work and there's no action, we get discussions on Japanese karate vs. Chinese karate, and some unfunny attempts at humor (though I like the goon that tries to use a nunchaku). As an example in displaying the comical buffoonery of a country bumpkin, Lee does a Three Stooges routine that will make you squirm and cringe.

"Return of the Dragon" (alternate title outside the U.S. was "The Way of the Dragon") was dubbed for American release, and it boasts the worst dubbing I've ever seen in any foreign film, martial-arts or otherwise. Not only do the words not match the lips (consistently true of most kung-fu epics), there is also a laughable moment where an English phrase is translated in...English! The title of the film, "Return of the Dragon," falsely advertised that Lee's heroic, James Bond-like character from "Enter the Dragon" was back ("Return" was released in the U.S. in 1974, one year after Lee's death and the release of "Enter the Dragon"). The only similarity between the two characters is their fighting style. Also worth noting is that most of the relatives of Lee's character were actual relatives of Lee, including Nora Miao, the girl with no fighting skills (if there was ever the waste of a decent actress, this is it) and Unicorn Chan.

"Return of the Dragon" boasts some effective, realistic fight footage and Lee has a catlike, phenomenally physical presence - you can't take your eyes off him. The fight scenes are legendary and definitely worth seeing for them alone. The movie is laughable and silly but definitely no time-waster.

Batturd, Robinflakey and Batbitch are all clueless

Check out my codpiece, or how I wish Chris Nolan went back in time and warned me not don the BatNipple
BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Originally written and published in 1998)

 The "Batman" movie series has approached the mentality of the campy Adam West TV series of yesteryear: dumb, parodic and juvenile. "Batman and Robin" is a bad film; wholly uneven and one-dimensional unlike the previous "Batman" films that relied so much on character. This one has so many fight scenes and Dolby-ized explosions and car wrecks that, at first, I thought I was watching an overblown action flick a'la Stallone.

The miscast George Clooney (TV's "E.R.") stars as the lighthearted, rather than brooding, Batman who is more concerned with bedroom theatrics and the look of his belt buckle and body armor than with catching the bad guys. Chris O'Donnell reprises his role as "Bird Boy," excuse me, Robin, the bird-brained Bat partner who is always horny. Poor Michael Gough returns as the dutiful servant of Wayne Manor, Alfred, who is getting quite ill (after seeing the script, no doubt) Then there's Alicia Silverstone (also miscast) as a schoolgirl who is Alfred's niece and loves to ride around in motorbikes because of the danger principle (?) Or is it the Danger Zone? She eventually dons a Bat suit and presto (!), she's Batgirl. Red alert to all screenwriters: where's the transition? Somehow, the idea that Alfred prepared a Bat suit for her because he was expecting her to enter the Batcave is hardly credible.

Is there a story or a worthy plot in this movie? Answer: neither. There's a plot thread which is left dangling longer than Batman does from the ceiling. Arnold Schwarzenegger is Mr. Freeze, a Terminator-like villain who shoots every innocent bystander with a freezing beam that turns them into ice sculptures. Why is he doing this? Because he wants to save his cryogenically preserved wife by finding a cure to a disease which the dying Alfred also suffers from. Got it? And the villainess is Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman), a sexy "Plant Girl" who has venomous lips and chlorophyll for blood. "Don't kiss her!" utters Batman at one point before Robin is lured into lip lock status. Poison Ivy wants Mother Nature to begin plant life all over again and thus becomes partners with Mr. Freeze who is ready to freeze Gotham City. Will Batman, Robin and Batgirl stop them in time? Does anybody care anymore?

Joel Schumacher ("Batman Forever") helmed this travesty as well and it is a considerable waste of celluloid. He shoots all the fight scenes in extremely tight close-ups so it is hard to decipher what is happening sometimes. Some action scenes do work, particularly the dazzling opening sequence, but how many tight butt shots and shots below-the-belt can you stand? Holy sexual innuendos!

The characters are amazingly all underdeveloped. The duality of Batman and Bruce Wayne is hardly represented anymore, and the script's idea of Bruce is to have Clooney walk around in a black robe and smile incongruently. After a while, I started to think that Batman and Bruce Wayne were not the same person! Chris O'Donnell tries to act tough but appears more as a jealous, sexually frustrated kid than a hero. Ditto Alicia Silverstone who is as clueless as everyone else. Schwarzenegger seems to be having a good time but his one-liners ("The Iceman Cometh. Hell will freeze over. Just chill") get to be repetitive after a while and do nothing to enhance the character - he's just a blue-eyed hulk. Uma Thurman is marvelous in perhaps the best performance in the movie but her Poison Ivy shtick (blowing kisses of purplish smoke) is thinly executed and done with none of the relish that Michelle Pfeiffer had with Catwoman. And pity Michael Gough who I hope will outlive this pointless franchise. And there is the villain Bane, who is simply another musclebound hulk.

I am a fan of the Batman series but this one is tired, unimaginative and soulless. There's no excitement or spontaneity in the dusty Batcave anymore. The music is loud enough to keep you awake, the explosions are delivered on cue, and there's enough TV-style humor to make Adam West want to don his suit again, but there's no sense of who Batman and Robin are or why they should be considered heroes. As usual, the threadbare villains steal the show. One more movie like this and the villains will become the heroes to root for. Maybe that's not such a bad idea.

What if the South won and Lincoln lived to be an old man?

C.S.A: Confederate States of America (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Alternately hilarious and frightening, "C.S.A: Confederate States of America" is an alternate account, in the guise of a mockumentary, of Civil War History. It posits a fascinating question: what if the Confederates won the Civil War instead of the Northerners? The scenario is troubling, the answer many will find controversial.

In this alternate account, President Abraham Lincoln is not assassinated in the Ford Theater - he hides from the Confederates by wearing blackface and stays with Harriet Tubman. He lives to be an old man, a forgotten footnote in history who lives his last days in Canada in infamy after having been jailed. Confederate Jefferson Davis becomes President, the United States become the Confederate States, slaves are considered the white man's property forever, and Mark Twain and others move to Canada where an abolitionist group is formed. Oh, that is not all. Hitler is our friend in CSA, a chancellor to Germany who is recruited for talks on how to handle the Jews - use them as slave labor instead of exterminating them! (It is never clear if Hitler went ahead with his own holocaust or not.) The CSA goes to war with Canada over their anti-slavery, abolitionist stance. To make matters worse, the film we are watching is actually a PBS-type of documentary with modern-day commercial breaks featuring the worst commercial products ever that carry negative images of blacks (many of these products did exist at one time, the names of which I will not repeat here).

"C.S.A" covers a lot of ground, from popular culture perpetuating the minstrel stereotypes all through the 2000 decade, to the reasons why the Civil War was fought (slavery, primarily, a bone of contention for many historians, and secession from the Union), to products that reinforce the slave mentality (the film ends with a description of various products that did exist and some, Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima, that continue the trend, to the existence of mulattos (a big no-no), to propaganda film such as the brilliant fake "I Married an Abolitionist" and the D.W. Griffith fake film featuring a blackface Lincoln, to a mocking of the TV show "COPS" called "Runaway," to a 2000 political candidate with lineage dating to the Civil War who might be a mulatto. Interspersed throughout is actual film footage and photos of a time most would probably like to forget (including that 1863 photo taken by abolitionists of a black man's heavily whip-scarred back, or one heinous photo of a hanging), all meant to shock and provoke from a history that has been rewritten or glorified or romanticized.

Written and directed by film professor Kevin Willmott, "C.S.A." is pure satire and either you will laugh or cringe or both. It is most certainly thought-provoking and disturbing in that modern-day society is not far off from what is shown in this alternate universe. The film was released in 2004 but, in 2012, we are still too far from an America where blacks are not discriminated (or almost segregated, notably schools thanks to the Koch brothers, an act that almost became a reality). Discrimination and institutional racism are more subtle nowadays, but it still happens. So when politicians from the right discuss how things have changed, and that they wish to espouse the values and virtues of the past (as shown clearly in this film), you have to wonder what past they are talking about.  

A Joe Pesci gem of a Ruby

DEAR MR. WONDERFUL (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 I stated once before that one of my favorite hobbies is finding an obscure film on TV or at a video store. As I sifted through endless DVD's and VHS's at the local Princeton Record Exchange store (check it out sometime if you are ever in Princeton, NJ), I came across a DVD of a film I've heard of. It's called "Dear Mr. Wonderful," an occasionally diverting, slow-paced and distressing film. It was released back in 1982 to little or no fanfare, but it does sport an effective Joe Pesci performance, his first lead role after the breakthrough of "Raging Bull."

A mustachioed Pesci plays a Jewish singer named Ruby Dennis. He lives with his sister (Karen Ludwig), a factory worker, and her son, Raymond (Evan Handler), in a crowded apartment in Jersey City, NJ. Ruby owns a bowling alley that serves as a lounge for singers. It seems Ruby does all the singing while the crashing of bowling balls drowns out all the music. His dream is to go to Vegas, but his sister feels he is only fooling himself (though she does offer him money stashed in tin bowls in the freezer!) It turns out that the mob wants to take the alley out of the neighborhood, thinking (correctly) that Ruby is an embarrassment and too much of an expense when they could have a real nightclub. Ruby will not budge yet money is tight. It is so tight in fact that his nephew, Raymond, starts swiping gold necklaces from women in the street!

In some ways, "Dear Mr. Wonderful" has the flavor and realistic feel of a Martin Scorsese picture, and that can be attributed to the realistic performances and some eyeful NY shots. In the acting range, Pesci has quite a few good scenes as Ruby, playing him as a man who doesn't realize he is stuck in a hole. Perhaps he is not such a great singer either (Joe Pesci also wrote his own songs for the film) - part of his act is to smoke a cigarette and hold a drink, though it may take more than that to appeal to renown singer Tony Martin, who shows up in a curious cameo. The film is also an attempt at showing the working habits of the Jewish working class, though it is less successful than tapping into Ruby's own failed dreams. In the lounge scenes, he seems to be as pathetic and lonely as Jake La Motta's nightclub acts in "Raging Bull."

As directed by German director Peter Lilienthal, "Dear Mr. Wonderful" has its lulls (including a tepid romance between Ruby and a 21-year-old singer) but what it does right is convey Ruby's own ambitions and tired musical act. Barring sentiment and any Capraesque moments, we see Ruby as a fleshed-out human being on a road of self-destruction. The fact that he realizes his own shortcomings without admitting to them is the film's major strength. "Dear Mr. Wonderful" (also known as "Ruby's Dream") may not be your cup of tea but it is worth seeking out.

Bad Transgressive Trash

GEEK MAGGOT BINGO (1983) - A.K.A. The Freak From Suckweasel Mountain 

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia 

Okay, this is one of those curios that you may or may not have heard of before. I am in the minority. A friend of mine lent me his copy from a video store called "Twonky's" in New Jersey, Somerset County to be precise. He called this "bad art" yet worthwile if you love art, period. Whatever the heck that means. Oh, yes, the ludicrous production design reminded him of "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari." I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe.

"Geek Maggot Bingo" is so rotten and devoid of anything remotely artistic or fun, even on a "movie-movie" level, that you'll wish I never even bothered writing this review to begin with. There's TV horror host John Zacherle hosting this film, badly, and nodding off while watching it, as was I. There are cardboard sets that look like they have been designed in the basement that would make the late Ed Wood turn in his grave at the sight of them. A terrible monster creation that makes "Robot Monster" look like the most inventively designed creature in ages. A vampire queen named Scumbalina that makes me wish Vampira did come back and host horror-thons again - she should have sued this actress for doing such a horrible imitation! Dozens of laughless one-liners and in-jokes starting with Mr. Frankenberry (Ha!) and his assistant, Gicko, pronounced Gekko! A cowboy crooner who is almost used for experiments by the good Doctor. Two bimbos on hand for sexual dallying, although I may have miscounted by one. Are you still reading this?

The production is so badly patched-together and edited that I wouldn't call it anything less than grade F gutter 

trash. Nick Zedd, the thoughtless don of "The Cinema of Transgression," directed this, yet even 

Allan Smithee could have done a more efficient job. Come to think of it, Smithee would've been 
too proud to let his pseudonym be used on this junk. Bad art? No! Call it bad trash. 

NOTE: For truly good bad movies of another kind, check out the hilarious Ed Wood classics (especially "Glen or Glenda!"), or the cult classic "Reefer Madness." Not only will you have a better time, you'll find they are about something, too.

Roger Moore as relaxed as ever

A VIEW TO A KILL (1985)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Roger Moore took his final bow as James Bond with 1985's "A View to a Kill," and it was well worth the effort. Forget what critics said at the time who lambasted the film - I suppose they found it to be a serviceable Bond with no new tricks. Despite its lack of gimmicky gadgets, this Bond film was more than serviceable - it was laid-back and actually kind of fun. It is self-parodic at times, though not as much as "Moonraker" or "Octopussy."

Bond is now after a typically megalomaniac Bond villain, former KGB agent Max Zorin (Christopher Walken), a psychopath with dreams of cornering the computer chip market in Silicon Valley by essentially destroying it with an earthquake and flooding it with seawater! That is one way to destroy the competition! (There is also some business about a racing scam that is given short shrift). Grace Jones is on hand as his sexy kung-fu girlfriend who has as much spine as Zorin does.

Then we have the Bond girl, this time a geologist named Stacey Sutton (Tanya Roberts), who is about as exciting a female lead as she was in "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle." Her character used to work for Zorin, now she works for the governor of California. There is also Tibbet (Patrick MacNee), Bond's partner and faux limo driver, who is as efficient as Bond, though he forgets to see who may be hiding in the backseat of his limo! Oh, and Bond pretends to be a journalist (and he makes a mean omelet!) Also interesting is the locale - normally American locations American locationswere not used in Bond films prior to "A View to a Kill" (excepting "Diamonds are Forever" with its Vegas location).

In terms of stunts, there are some nifty ones. We get yet another ski chase, this time with Bond using a snowboard and a snowmobile, to the tune of the Beach Boys! There is also Bond driving a car that gets cut in half! Bond riding on a steeple chase in a course set with some traps. A car chase where Bond is hanging from a fire engine ladder. A truly death-defying burning elevator scene! As for nifty and inventive modes of transportation, well, there is an iceberg submarine!

Moore downplays beautifully, and peroxide blonde Walken can be terrifying (with his share of double entendres). There is not much more to report in this 007 outing except it is not as bad as its reputation seems to indicate (and it is a couple of miles ahead of "For Your Eyes Only"). Seen one Bond, seen them all would be the phrase. Still, smirking, witty Moore gives it a lift and makes us glad we are there.

The Star Child makes contact

2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

You know the impact that Stanley Kubrick had with "2001: A Space Odyssey" when a brief picture of him figures in "2010" on a Time magazine cover - he is shown as the Soviet Premier right next to Arthur C. Clarke, the author of "2001." "2010" is an impossible task to follow on the coattails of "2001" but it is unfair to think that no sequel could or should be made. Under the direction of Peter Hyams ("Outland"), it is no great work of art but it is certainly no disaster.

Roy Scheider stars as Dr. Heywood Floyd, a noble scientist who feels the Discovery ship's disastrous journey to Jupiter was his fault. To backtrack for those who have not been lucky to witness Kubrick's film or Clarke's novel, the Discovery ship was piloted by two astronauts, one of them being Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea). The other astronauts were killed by the supercomputer HAL 9000, and Dave wandered into the far reaches of the universe and evolved into some Star Child. Floyd knows nothing of the Star Child or those monoliths that orbit Jupiter. Nevertheless, he decides to embark on a trip to Jupiter (which will take roughly two years) and reluctantly travels with a Russian crew - they are riding on a Soviet vessel known as the Leonov. At this time, the U.S. and Russia are on the brink of a nuclear war over Central America (hey, this was 1984). The Leonov's commander is Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren), who is none too pleased to be traveling with Americans who ask too many questions (there is an implication that the Soviets would rather do all the work and find the Discovery ship and its mysteries for themselves). Also on board are two Americans, Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban), who designed the HAL computer, and an engineer named Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), the designer of the Discovery.

"2010" is full of dialogue, probably more than is needed since the film barely comes close to the visual power of Kubrick's masterpiece. One of the key sequences of "2001" was its climax where you heard total silence while the astronauts were outside the ship - in space, you can't hear anything. "2010" violates that rule. There is also far too much voice-over narration by Dr. Floyd which interrupts the narrative during key moments - we do not need to hear his voice as his transmissions are read to his wife and daughter on Earth. Still, there is much to savor throughout. Scheider's Floyd portrayal is more full-bodied than the colder, detached William Sylvester from the original film. And it is thrilling to watch Dr. Chandra trying to reconnect with HAL, knowing of course what HAL was up to before. John Lithgow brings some understated humor as the engineer with a bad case of vertigo. And there are many startling sequences, including a hair-raising moment where the Leonov turns off its engines as it orbits a planet.

"2010" ties up a few loose ends, including one involving HAL and a strange ending that will not satisfy many (myself included). Peter Hyams is in the unenviable position of positing a more hopeful picture than a pessimist like Kubrick. Some may get annoyed with the reappearance of Keir Dullea as Bowman who insists that something wonderful is about to happen. For all its flaws, "2010" is still an effective movie but it has no trace of the poetry or ambiguity that Kubrick imbued "2001" with. Maybe it is too much to expect nowadays, or even in 1984, for a film to rely on visuals to tell a story and to keep audiences guessing as to the mystery and power of an infinite universe. "2001" had maybe twenty minutes of dialogue in a 2 hour film. "2010" beats it by almost a full hour and a half.

To giggity, or not giggity with LeBrock...

THE WOMAN IN RED (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There is a great moment I remember so fondly from "The Woman in Red" when it was on cable back in the mid-1980's. Gene Wilder is sitting in a car, hiding from Gilda Radner. She finds him in the car and he feigns a heart attack. She then reaches inside the car and pulls the brake, thus sending Gene's car rolling down those steep streets in San Francisco. That is one of the big laughs in a largely restrained, diluted but charming souffle of a movie.

Gene Wilder is Teddy, a San Francisco businessman working for an ad agency who spots Kelly LeBrock one fine day inside a garage as she passes an air vent, Marilyn Monroe-style. LeBrock is a famous supermodel. Teddy is married to a woman (Judith Ivey) who keeps a gun in their bedroom drawer! He wants nothing more than to have sex with LeBrock, and lies and stages hysterical acts to get there. One has Charles Grodin pretending to be blind as he endlessly knocks over bar glasses, and another involves the always engaging Joseph Bologna pretending that his wife has left him again by shouting at the top of his lungs in front of Teddy's wife.

For a rollicking farce, "Woman in Red" is not that chaotic, just this side of subdued. Matthew Zorek as some teen punk is far too laid-back. Still, for some measure of goodwill, we got the late Gilda Radner. Her character leads to a few misunderstandings in the beginning when she thinks Teddy has the hots for her (who could confuse Radner with LeBrock?) Wilder has many bravura moments, especially when trying to get one of his friends (who are all unfaithful) to call his house when his wife is home so he can pretend to refuse to go to work at a late hour, which is when he could meet up with LeBrock. Mostly the film has a leisurely pace, lacking the chaos of Howard Hawks who could speed this thing up like no one's business, once upon a time. 

Based on a French farce known as "Pardon Mon Affaire," the movie sparkles rather than energizes its slight plot, which is really about Gene Wilder trying to get laid with the stunning Kelly LeBrock. Nothing more, nothing less but oh, what fun. 

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."

Never say no to Connery

NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

In 1983, after a twelve-year absence, Sean Connery returned to the role that made him famous: the suave secret spy James Bond. He returned with the smoothness and incalculable presence of the true spy hero we have all come to know and love. "Never Say Never Again" was the ironic title but, outside of Connery and one of the best damn Bond villains ever, the movie is only fitfully exciting and nowhere near as engrossing or as thrilling as Connery's earlier Bond pictures.

James Bond is now a teacher who is asked to complete a strict regiment of diet and exercise at a health farm. He has poisoned his body with too many toxins, including red meat, white bread and dry martinis. "Well, I shall cut out the white bread," says Mr. Bond. Heck, can you imagine Bond not drinking a dry martini? At the health farm, Bond gets wind of trouble when a certain Fatima Blush (Barbara Carrera) is beating the holy hell out of some poor schmoe who refuses to scan his eye! Turns out the poor schmoe is...well, if you have seen "Thunderball," you'll know this is an outright remake. Why they chose to remake "Thunderball" is beyond me (something about a contractual obligation) but the plot involves SPECTRE putting the world at ransom after stealing two nuclear missiles. They acquired these missiles thanks to the poor schmoe's fake eye that replicates The President of the United States's right eye! Bond is asked into service to spy on a key figure in this crisis, the suave Largo (Klaus Maria Brandeur), who owns a beautiful ship called "The Flying Saucer" where he can monitor his missiles and have nice conversations with dear old Blofeld (Max Von Sydow). Of course, Bond must also evade Fatima's charms and explosives, play a deadly computer game where the risks mean greater electrical shocks, survive shark attacks, do the tango with Largo's babelicious Kim Basinger, practice massage therapy, use his laser wristwatch to get out of jams, and so on.

I could say that if you have seen one Bond film, you've seen them all. The difference is that Connery's Bond brings back the charm and danger of the real superspy, the man we believed could kill without much provocation. It is the danger element that was missing from Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton's portrayals - Connery has it in spades.

To complement Connery's performance, we have the witty, sneak, mad Largo played by Brandeur. It is a performance of uncontrollable rage and genuine pathos. Look carefully at two scenes he shares with Basinger (playing the good Bond girl, Domino). One has Domino asking Largo what he would do if she left him - "I'll cut your throat," he says as he kisses her. The other tense scene has Largo giving her a priceless artifact to only then destroy it. "You are crazy," says Domino. "Yes, maybe I am," replies Largo. Brandeur and screenwriter Lorenzo Semple, Jr. bring a frightening quality to Largo - acknowledgement of one's own evil. We want him dead yet we feel pity for him. Of all the Bond villains I have seen, Brandeur's Largo may be the most memorable and the most threatening to Bond.

It would have been wonderful to bring back Desmond Llewelyn as the real expert inventor Q (this time played by Alex McCowen), having one last go at humiliating Connery's Bond with his expert knowledge of all gadgets. McCowen is fine but somehow his line deliveries are not as engaging. There is also a new Miss Moneypenny and a new Felix Leitner (interestingly played by Bernie Casey) but both actors pale in comparison to their original counterparts. Only Edward Fox has the right touch as M.

"Never Say Never Again" is not as exciting or as intriguing as Connery's earlier Bonds (the finale is awkward involving an underwater fight) but it will do for Connery fans. This is more of a relaxed action thriller than most - the perfect film to watch with a dry martini.

Martini, shaken or stirred? I don't give a damn

CASINO ROYALE (2006)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Sean Connery epitomized the suave, killer instinct of everyone's favorite superspy, the one and only 007. Roger Moore played it for laughs with plenty of wit, as well maintaining the suavity. George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton never quite fit the role at all. Pierce Brosnan was simply a bore. But I am happy to report that Daniel Craig brings some much needed adrenaline, dry humor, intensity and killer instinct as 007 in one of the best James Bond films ever made, "Casino Royale."

Adapted from Ian Fleming's first novel, "Casino Royale" gives us a more gruff, realistic James Bond, one who is in danger of ever receiving his license to kill due to his volatile nature. At the start of the film, he kills a 00 agent who has been selling secrets. That is his second kill, the first kill is an informant. M (Judi Dench, more authoritative than ever) is reluctant to make the eager James Bond (Daniel Craig) a 00 agent. But Bond is reckless and in full control of his mission: find Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a terrorist banker, and take his money at a high stakes poker game so that he cannot finance any more terrorist organizations, and get the girl - this time a smart, sassy treasury agent named Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). Easier said than done. This Bond is not equipped with gadgets galore - he has to use his smarts and his cunning ability to run and jump across one rooftop building after another, not to mention climbing a scaffold at a construction site and a huge crane.

Bond also does a lot more fistfighting than usual, and narrowly gets out of one scrape after another. When he isn't using his fists, he has his Walther PPK gun. When he isn't interrupted by dangerous, life-threatening circumstances while playing poker, he comforts Vesper in a shower scene that is surprisingly touching. This is a James Bond that we care about - Craig shows Bond's humanity, sensitivity and charm and his lack of grace when ordering a martini (Let's just say that Connery never went there). One ingredient missing is Bond's firsthand knowledge of all aspects of his mission; still, this is first major mission so I will let that slide. He also proves to be a lean, muscular killing machine. And the testicle torture scene is extremely tough stuff for a Bond movie (yes, even more torturous than 1989's "License to Kill"). 

As for the villain, we have Le Chiffre whose left eye has the occasionally tear of blood. He is not the usual world-dominating villain - simply a man who is at odds with his money and is vulnerable enough when confronting the people he owes money to. You feel sorry for the guy, something which I can't say I ever felt for Blofeld.

Directed crisply and smoothly by Martin Campbell (who also helmed "Goldeneye"), "Casino Royale" is superlative, first-class entertainment that is edgier, far more intense and more edge-of-your-seat than almost any Bond film with Sean Connery at his peak. Between foot chases and fistfights in hotel staircases and an out-of-control car chase in an airport, there is the sinking of a palazzo that has to be seen to be believed. I have enjoyed most Bond films over the last thirty years (complete with a lack of interest in any that Pierce Brosnan appeared in, aside from "Goldeneye" and "Die Another Day"). But Daniel Craig's Bond sweats bullets in this film, and so will you.

Burt Renolds wants you!

PATERNITY (1981)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The 1970's and 80's were filled with comedies of all sizes and shapes. There were outrageous comedies of the Mel Brooks and Monty Python variety, slapstick like the unforgivable "Slapstick of Another Kind" and the more forgiving and restrained "Micki and Maude," and then there were movies like "Paternity." What is alarming about "Paternity" is that it could only have been made in the 1980's. The movie is genial and pleasing like 1982's vastly underrated "Author, Author," but, more importantly, it doesn't call attention to itself. There is good comic timing and respectable performances and some sublime moments courtesy of Burt Reynolds and Elizabeth Ashley.

Reynolds brings his easygoing charm to the screen as the manager of Madison Square Garden. He is a bachelor but he is not interested in settling down - he just wants a surrogate mother to give birth to a baby, preferably a son. There are a few candidates, including a hilarious misunderstanding with Lauren Hutton as an interior decorator, but no one satisfactory. That is until he meets a waitress (Beverly D'Angelo), who wants to go to an expensive art school in France she can't afford. Reynolds offers 50,000 dollars for her to be the surrogate mother. No mention is made of the fact that she could use the money to go to art school. In fact, Reynolds seems to hold little interest in her as anything but an "unemotional business transaction." He uses those words a lot but, since this is a romantic comedy, you can see where it is headed.

"Paternity" has a slow middle but it is occasionally entertaining and it builds on the chemistry of Reynolds and D'Angelo, who make a dynamite pair. I also found Elizabeth Ashley to be sublime in the few scenes she has where she talks about bringing up children of her own. Also look for young Peter Billingsley, before his iconic role in "A Christmas Story," as a kid who plays basketball with Reynolds.

"Paternity" is a safe, harmless date movie, and probably one of Reynolds' best roles before succumbing to the lows of "Cannonball Run" and its infinite copycats. It would make a nice double-feature with "Author, Author."

Mirror, Mirror, Jill Whitlow is the fairest of them all

 
TWICE DEAD (1988)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Twice Dead" is a goofy horror-comedy that could only have existed in the 1980's. It is difficult to take seriously and its tongue is firmly placed in its cheek, and the gore for a relatively spooky haunted house feature is minimal.

The Cates family have moved into a mansion they inherited. It once belonged to a 1930's stage actor who hung himself after stabbing a female wax figure in the back! Of course, the Cates are unaware of this completely. However, Scott Cates (Tom Bresnahan), a college student interested in FX and makeup, discovers the belongings of this dashing stage actor in the attic, including an old record player and a noose! Scott's sister, (Jill Whitlow), who has an interested in kilns, is drawn in by these findings. Unfortunately, the family has to contend with punk squatters in the opening scenes of the film. These guys look like leftovers from "The Lost Boys," only they are not vampires (that might have been interesting if they were). Silk (Christopher Burgard) is the leader of this gang, and Crip (Jonathan Chapin) has a fixation on Robin and tears up every time he sees her.

Why this gang of misfits wants to hang out at this mansion is the question everyone should be asking - it is only beneficial to the scant plot we are provided. The ghost of the 30's actor resides in the mansion and cannot stand the punks, thus proving to be helpful to Scott and Robin (who bears a resemblance to the wax figure he stabs in the prologue) in thwarting them. And thanks to Scott's father, Scott keeps his shotgun nearby just in case.

"Twice Dead" is a fun little ghost story with a couple of neat little twists. It is also horrendously lit and, occasionally, laughably acted. The outside shots of the mansion and a silly Camaro-and-hearse chase are flatly lit. The scenes inside the mansion are controlled with a good use of shadows and mirror shots.

In terms of casting, laughable can only begin to describe Todd Bridges as Pete, Scott's library buddy - you'd think he was still stuck in "Different Strokes" mode. Tom Bresnahan and Jill Whitlow have too much chemistry to be siblings - the writers should have made them a teen couple rather than blood-related. Still, those enamored with Jill Whitlow and her cute voice will pine for her in this movie.

"Twice Dead" is nothing special nor will it be remembered as anything other than a Roger-Corman-produced campy horror flick. Those of you nostalgic for Charlie Spradling's breasts; some gory killings by methods including a dumb waiter and motorcycle; cheesy hair metal songs; Brooke Bundy as a caring mother and wife (unlike her mother role in "Nightmare on Elm Street 4"), and those of you still carrying your 80's teenage crush on Jill Whitlow who is at her perkiest here (aside from "Night of the Creeps"), "Twice Dead" fits the bill for an evening of minor thrills, some scares and a few laughs.