Dry Rio Bravo take with sci-fi overtones

COWBOYS AND ALIENS (2011)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

Never before have I seen a movie title that distills exactly what one should expect...and provide no background for the simple and simpleminded title. "Cowboys and Aliens" is an absolute bore of a movie - a crossbreed (mashup to the rest of you) of two genres, the Western and science-fiction, to less than spectacular effect. The title sells the movie's few rudimentary pleasures but its tone is at once joyless and indistinguishable from anything else.

Daniel Craig is a fierce, rugged thief who wakes up in the middle of the Arizona desert with complete amnesia. He wears a wrist contraption that looks alien to any 1870's prison shackles. He arrives in the town of Absolution, ruffles some feathers with a gun-toting young cowboy (Paul Dano, in the most animated performance in the movie), is imprisoned since he is on a Most Wanted list, ruffles more feathers with a cattle baron (Harrison Ford, in a performance that is the very definition of gruff) and, before one can say "High Noon," spaceships appear from the night sky and practically blow up the entire town. These ships also fire lassos that wrap themselves around an unlucky number of Absolution's finest and place them inside the vessels. This is definitely a nod to "War of the Worlds."

The tone of this murky film already put me off by the time Craig's character shows up in town. Who is this guy? We never quite find out aside from the fact that he is a wanted man and had a woman in his life who was abducted by aliens - he is practically an amnesiac from first frame to last. Ford's mean baron gives the legendary actor a chance to shake his heroic charisma but the character is still something of a cipher.

As a western, this mediocre movie moves at a snail's pace. Things do not get livelier with Olivia Wilde as a town prostitute who is not what she appears to be. Keith Carradine comes off best as a reluctant sheriff but he doesn't have enough screen time. Same with the fantastic presence of Clancy Brown as a gun-toting preacher, but he's gone before one can get accustomed to his colorful character. And when the vicious aliens do attack (who are interested in gold in the movie's only novel touch of irony), the film's action moves and radiates with no friction, no surprise, no tension. Since we can't care about the one-dimensional cowboys, cattle barons and thieves who display the bare minimum of character shadings, how can we care about explosions and cowboys on horseback being chased by these ships?

The aliens are large, freakish beasts that look like they can tear apart any puny human just by the touch of their fingernails, yet Ford can strike them on the head with anything at his disposal including his rifle and the aliens fall to the ground a little easily. It is that kind of movie, stunningly photographed, but it is not much fun and hardly memorable.  

Momma Beheaded by a Basketball

DEADLY FRIEND (1986)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

Shortly after Wes Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" came "Deadly Friend," an awkward hybrid of a teenage romantic comedy and gory horror film which unfortunately misses the mark. It did not do much for Craven's reputation or for audiences, and the results are middling at best.

Matthew Laborteaux is Paul, a 15-year-old scientific whiz kid who is also an innovative inventor. He has just moved to a new small town with his mother to study artificial intelligence at a prestigious university. Paul has a robotic companion named BeeBee who is operated by remote control. Life seems pleasant until Paul meets his next-door neighbor, Samantha (Kristy Swanson), who is physically abused by her father. Before you can say "Are we watching a John Hughes flick?", Samantha is tragically killed and BeeBee is blown to bits by a shotgun-wielding neighbor (Anne Ramsey). Paul decides to bring back Samantha by implanting a chip in her head, which miraculously brings her back to life (without benefit of an electrical charge!) The problem is that Samantha resembles a Gothic robot or ghoul from "Night of the Living Dead," and she begins to kill those who have treated her badly in the past. Not exactly what Paul had in mind.

For the first half-hour, "Deadly Friend" almost works and aims to be a charming, tongue-in-cheek teenage version of "The Bride of Frankenstein." Unfortunately, the relationship between Paul and Samantha is so undeveloped that she becomes a rampaging monster before we even to get to know her. The only thing Paul admires about Samantha are her breasts. There are too many plot holes as well, such as the remote control's inability to stop BeeBee or Samantha from progressing towards danger. Maybe Paul just needs new batteries in uneventful emergencies. Then there are a few nightmare sequences that must have been added due to Craven's success with the original "Elm Street." The film nicely sets up some ideas and characters and then chucks them all out the window in favor of a gory horror pic. What you can say about a film when the most talked-about scene involves a novel beheading by a basketball!

"Deadly Friend" was Craven's biggest studio film at the time, but it was obviously taken away from his hands by the producers. Underwritten characters, illogical plot twists and gratuitous gore only cheapen what might have been an inspired idea.

Parker's unflattering and sleep-inducing auditions

ELLIE PARKER (2005)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

"Ellie Parker" is a self-indulgent disaster - a movie about an actor's endless journey through casting auditions. Though it has Naomi Watts before her "Mulholland Dr." success, it features scant evidence of anything other than Watts's ability to transport herself into any kind of role.

Naomi Watts plays an actress, Ellie Parker, who goes from one audition to another and never quite gets anywhere. Of course, this tale is set in Hollywood, the land where you are either a waiter/waitress or an actor/actress (or an executive producer if you have no talent). One terrific scene shows Ellie leaving one audition where she played a Southern gal to another where she has to audition as a loveless slut. She changes her clothes while driving, practicing obscene lines with a Bronx accent.

Ellie's life is essentially an audition as well, an audition to find her identity. She loses focus and forgets why she ever wanted to be an actress. She has a boyfriend who has affairs, she sees a therapist, has a best friend and fellow actress who steals from antique stores, and not much else. One day, she has an encounter where she crashes into the car of a cinematographer (Scott Coffey). Of course, this cinematographer is not what he seems.

"Ellie Parker" was shot on a mini-DV camcorder with a constant hand-heldedness that might give you a migraine. I do not admonish anyone for using digital video (heck, George Lucas used it for the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy) but I do admonish anyone who can't hold the camera still for more than a few seconds. The technique works wonders sometimes, particularly a superbly funny and horrifying scene where Ellie and her friend test each other to see who can fake tears the fastest. Most of the time, the movie strains to be seen, fixating on unflattering close-ups of Watts' blonde hair and so on. Maybe the point is to show how unglamorous the life of a struggling actress can be, but a little stabilization with the camera wouldn't have hurt.

"Ellie Parker" first breathed life as a 15-minute short, later expanded over the years by writer-director Scott Coffey as a feature-length film. The problem is the movie coasts along on nothing more than Ellie's complaints about her self and self-worth without much introspection - she is simply an annoyance. Instead of depth of character, we get an unnecessary club scene where a practically unrecognizable Keanu Reeves appears; an inexplicable scene set inside a zoo; blue ice cream dripping from Ellie's lips; Chevy Chase as Ellie's agent; an unwatchable acting exercise; some moronic, zonked-out artists who are producing a movie they don't care about, and so on. Most of the goings-on seem dull and superfluous, saying little about Ellie Parker. Naomi Watts' breakout role in "Mulholland Dr." where she played a similar actress who has one outstanding audition said more about Hollywood and working actresses than anything in the vapid, interminable "Ellie Parker."

The worst Bruce Lee rip-off ever!

FIST OF FEAR, TOUCH OF DEATH (1980)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I suppose nothing is worse than seeing something as appalling as a fake Bruce Lee biography. "Fist of Fear, Touch of Death" is not just a fake and wholly inaccurate biography, it is also the stupidest, most cheaply made, amateurish, stinking pile of maggot-infested cheese ever fostered on the American public. I suppose it would be forgivable if it was only shown on cable or video but this, this turd-like excuse for a movie, was shown in theaters!

Set in New York's Madison Square Garden, Adolph Caesar ("A Soldier's Story") is the news reporter who is there to cover a martial-arts tournament where the successor to Bruce Lee will be determined. Caesar interviews action stars like Fred "The Hammer" Williamson, who feels the whole event is a waste of time; Aaron Banks, who believes in the Bruce Lee conspiracy that Lee was killed by the "touch of death," and there is a faux interview with Bruce Lee himself drenched in sepia tones. Then we are treated to an overlong faux biography of Bruce himself for no reason other than to pad the film to an interminable 1 hour and twenty minutes. The biographical information is a joke, determining that Bruce's karate, not kung-fu influence, was from his great-great grandfather who was a Chinese samurai! Even I know that the samurai were Japanese, not Chinese - a better foundation for Lee's skills would've been if his ancestors came from the Shaolin Temple. The footage of his great-great grandfather is from some obscure martial-arts film where we see one long fight sequence involving, among other things, an abacus used as a weapon! Even better is the endless Lee footage from the short-lived TV series "Longstreet" masquerading as interview footage.

The best moment is when Lee meets with a film director about doing an action film based on his martial-arts experience, just prior to doing "The Green Hornet." Then we are shown a clip of some guy jumping off a roof! The problem with this glaringly erroneous fact is that Bruce never made an American martial-arts film prior to "The Green Hornet," and even his first American film was "Marlowe" in 1969 where he played a minion to a mafioso type. Let's not forget that even Lee's proposed "Kung-Fu" series was accepted but the producers felt the public wasn't ready for a Chinese-American action star so they cast David Carradine instead.

But "Fist of Fear" doesn't end there. In fact, excepting the last five minutes of the film, there is hardly any Madison Square Garden footage, and most of it is limited to talking head interviews. We are terrorized by scenes where Fred Williamson is mistaken for Harry Belafonte (!), a Kato-impersonator (Billy Louie) kicks the butt of potential Central Park rapists, Ron Van Clief kicking butt with more of these rapists, a few close-up shots of women's breasts and buttocks while they jog, an obviously fake tournament fight where Billy Louie plucks his opponent's eyeballs out and throws them to the audience, and more garbage filler than most dumpsters can carry. One thing you'll learn from this trash is that women are often raped by the attacker by, get this, merely holding the woman's hands against a wall and screaming obscenities. There is no theme, no story, no sense of purpose to "Fist of Fear," other than finding the successor to Bruce Lee. If the legendary Bruce Lee is not turning over in his grave, then I will when I die.

A new menace in Middle-Earth

THE HOBBIT (2012)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The critics have declared Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" too long, too expository, too much and, in some instances, too boring. Some have also complained about Peter Jackson's new invention - a 48-frame-per-second film that makes everything appear hyperreal - fake-looking in other words. I have not seen the film in this format so I can't comment but that hardly matters. "The Hobbit" is a lavishly mounted, extraordinarily intimate and awesome fantasy adventure - it blows away any other fantasy films since Jackson's own "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King." 

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is a hobbit who happily smokes and eats in his own little house. He is approached one day by Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), a wise old wizard who has summoned a league of extraordinary dwarves to Bilbo's house. Bilbo knows precious little about Gandalf (this tale takes place 60 years before "Lord of the Rings") and is dismayed by all these dwarves. Their mission is to go back to their own homeland called The Lonely Mountain, which they had lost to an intensely fire-breathing dragon named Smaug who drove them out and killed many. Dragons love gold and this Smaug basically sleeps in it. Gandalf wants to recruit the reluctant Bilbo as the "burglar" which would help the dwarfes enter their own palace of riches. On the way, the group confront giant Scottish-accented trolls; a Goblin King (Barry Humphries) with ravaged, acne-scarred skin and an oversized hanging chin; Radaghast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), a wizard who resides in the forest and keeps bird poop on his head; the return of Gollum (Andy Serkis) who performs a game of riddles with Bilbo; the Stone Giants who try to crush each other while our heroes hang on for dear life and, most memorably, Azog the Pale Orc (Manu Bennett), a dangerous creature who lusts for war and intends nothing but to kill all dwarves. Naturally there has been some resentment towards Bilbo and that is true of the dwarf Thorin (Richard Armitage), a warrior who has a dislike for Elves and especially Azog. 

"The Hobbit" is simply a delight from first frame to last, easing from one encounter with fantastical creatures after another to dwarves singing and doing Bilbo's dishes! There are also the enormous vistas of Middle-Earth (played by New Zealand) coupled with vast palaces covered on every inch of floor by gold; the Goblin King's fiery underground lair; the deep bluish starkness of Azog's surroundings or the amber tones of Radaghast's own treehouse - all add great flavor and richness to the fantasy. Director Peter Jackson has also created the most convincing creatures I have seen in a fantasy film of this type yet, thanks to his creative WETA visual effects team. 

The story of this hobbit's adventure might be trifle next to the epic proportions of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" but that would be false advertising. The book of "The Hobbit" could have been mined for a two hour film or less, but Jackson and his writers have taken the tale and expanded it (including returning characters like Saruman and Galadriel who were not in the book) with a flair and magical rhythm that makes you forget its running time which is precisely ten minutes short of a three-hour span. Martin Freeman is a wonder as Bilbo, smart and witty yet innocent of the dangers that lay ahead (he has also got Ian Holm's feistiness). Ian McKellen is as sublime as ever as Gandalf and Andy Serkis shows a more psychopathic Gollum than we had anticipated in the years prior to "Lord of the Rings." Finally, there is the rough and tough Richard Armitage as Thorin, a dwarf who shares some of Aragorn's cynicism (in hindsight, I see a similarity to Viggo Mortensen's iconic character) but is also changed by this hobbit who is along for the ride. 

"The Hobbit" is part of a new trilogy of stories by Jackson and I do look forward to seeing where this story goes. But what is most alluring and captivating about Jackson's return to Middle-Earth is the intimacy. My favorite scene is where Gandalf explains to Galadriel his reaction to the bravery of Bilbo Baggins. Gandalf speaks in such gentle tones and with such sympathy that it is extraordinarly moving. It shows Peter Jackson's heart is in the right place. 

Welles proved them wrong with Kane

RKO 281 (1999)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

It is suitably ironic that Orson Welles was largely ignored by Hollywood after "Citizen Kane" and "Touch of Evil" - they wanted no part of him. Now, Welles is afforded more unauthorized biographies and film books than probably any other director. His film noir classic "Touch of Evil" was recently restored to the director's original specifications and editing strategies, forty years after the fact. His reigning "Kane" won its place in the AFI list in 1998 as the greatest American film ever made. His rejected screenplay for "The Cradle Will Rock" has been made into a film by director Tim Robbins. Now we have the story of Welles' s battle over "Citizen Kane" called "RKO 281," a supremely entertaining film with ball-of-fire performances and authentic period detail.

This lush biography stars the well-cast Liev Schreiber as the 25-year-old boy wonder who took Broadway by storm, and conquered the airwaves with his infamous "War of the Worlds" broadcast. He is given the opportunity to make a film about "War of the Worlds" but convinces a studio boss (Roy Scheider) to give him support to make a film called "Citizen Kane." "Kane" is of course based on the pioneering news tycoon William Randolph Hearst (grandly played by James Cromwell), and once the insiders in Hollywood catch wind of this, all hell breaks loose. "Kane" is of course Welles's first attempt to act and direct a film, and this causes pressure for him and his crew, including telling his cinematographer to make holes in the floorboards so he can get a real low-angle shot! But once Hearst and his young wife (Melanie Griffith) hear that their life story will be a Hollywood movie, he makes demands on all the studios to burn all existing prints of the film.

"RKO 281" maintains a tight focus on Welles and his battle over having complete control over his project - this was of course his own downfall since he was never afforded that control again in Hollywood. The film shows him to be a genius and a manipulator, and there are the highs and lows of his relationship with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (John Malkovich) - the controversy existed about how much of Welles's input ended up in the screenplay.

Schreiber is perfect for the role, and even looks a little bit like Welles - his intense outbursts are particularly good. His relationship with Malkovich is also well-presented, and through them we see that making a film, no matter how passionate or personal it is, is an arduous chore - what collaborations aren't?

"RKO 281" has many extraordinarily shot sequences, such as Hearst's dinner party or the behind-the-scenes filming of "Kane" - at one point, a camera falls off a crane as it is tracking in for a close-up! I also like the moment when Welles is inspired by Hearst's house or the puzzle pieces on the floor. If nothing else, "RKO 281" could have been longer. There are no references to the actors who worked on "Kane" (except for Joseph Cotten) - where's Ruth Warrick or Agnes Moorehead or Ray Collins in all this? How about the specific lighting design of "Kane" with all those memorable shafts of light?

Minor carps overall, "RKO 281" is a splendid recreation of an era in Hollywood not so different from today's - when big bucks and box-office revenues accounted for more than artistic integrity. Thank God that Orson Welles proved them wrong.

Moore's targets are Canada Dry

CANADIAN BACON (1995)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia (Originally written in 2004)

The controversial left-wing connoisseur who confronts and embarrasses the corporate underbelly of America, Michael Moore, is best known for making documentaries that are as confrontational as he is. Moore's genius is his penchant for catching CEO's of big corporations with their pants down. But one thing he can't do is direct a fictional movie (though some might argue that his work is anything but non-fiction) and his sole fictional film from 1995, "Canadian Bacon," is proof of this. Although I admire the intentions, it is all about as laughable and satiric as anything seen in "Saturday Night Live" in the last decade.

The movie begins in Niagara Falls where American cops, like the local sheriff (John Candy) and his assistant (Rhea Perlman), are encouraging unemployed workers to commit suicide by jumping into the cascading falls. It seems that the local weapons factory, Hacker Dynamics, has closed down and laid off hundreds of workers (shades here of "Roger and Me"). The reason is simple: the elected President of the U.S. (Alan Alda) has no wars to fight, thus no weapons need to be made. As a result, the Prez is slipping in the polls. What can he do? Well, the National Security Adviser, Stuart Smiley (Kevin Pollak), and General Dick Panzer (Rip Torn) suggest searching for a new enemy. The Cold War is over (though they also suggest that some friction could be generated with Russia) and most of the other dictators are dead (amazing how the former and very much alive Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is ignored, though I liked the joke about Noriega). That leaves Canada, the country to the north of the U.S.! And why not? Look at their maple leave flag! Look at the socialist groups that exist! No crime, no wars, no major poverty, no way! Besides, they play that violent sport called hockey! The reluctant President decides to go along with it, at any cost! His administration will convince the American people that Canada is the new enemy!

As I said, the intentions are admirable and, sometimes, "Canadian Bacon" hits the satiric bone with a clear stroke. It is an ingenious premise and vintage Michael Moore (some of the ideas are reiterated in his galvanizingly funny book "Downsize This!") Unfortunately, Moore fails to imbue the ideas with comical payoffs or real brazen humor. Most scenes are flatly staged and utterly dull, including scenes of the Canadian control room where all electrical power is handled by two senior citizens! There is a terminally unfunny moment where an RCPM officer (Steven Wright) is confronted by Candy's sheriff - the officer's headquarters is surrounded by jailed Canadian citizens who have committed the most rudimentary offenses.

The performances are not any better, lacking any zest or comic energy. We have Alan Alda, who would be the ideal President, trying his damnedest to look like a buffoon - he hardly seems like a charismatic leader and appears to have molded his straight-man shtick from the latest Woody Allen flick. Rip Torn, as the shrewd general, brings all the fire and brimstone you might expect without a shred of comic timing - he is like a cardboard cartoon of himself. John Candy comes off best as the sheriff who wants to find his assistant and rescue her from the CN tower! Candy always had an undeniable comic gift yet he squandered it in films like this one. G.D. Spradlin, who plays the head of Hacker Dynamics, takes the route of playing his character straight, as it should be.

"Canadian Bacon" needed the zing and the comical innuendoes of Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" or even Sidney Lumet's "Network." Kubrick and Lumet knew how to make you laugh by taking a serious subject and poking fun at it by going to extremes. Moore will have none of that. He assumes the subject is funny on principle. All he has done is laid a big one on the audience.

This Lantern is hardly minty fresh

GREEN LANTERN (2011)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

Maybe it is stiff competition but 2011 brought two Marvel superheroes to the screen with blazing energy and colorful fun, those two being Thor and Captain America. That same year, DC Comics brought to the screen "Green Lantern," a convoluted misfire with a few tricks up its sleeve but with little of the pizazz and personality of its Marvel competition.

Ryan Reynolds is an ace fighter pilot, Hal Jordan, who has bad memories of his own father, a fighter pilot who lost control of one his planes and died in an explosion. Hal is supposed to be testing these new fighter planes and ejects himself before letting one explode (those planes are damn expensive). His on/off again girlfriend, Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), vice president of Ferris Aircraft, is upset by his inability to fly one of these planes and to let go of his past trauma. That is until Hal tries to rescue a crash-landed alien craft carrying one of the Green Lanterns from the planet Oa, who gives him the ring that will make Hal into a Lantern. This is no easy task - Hal trains to gain control of the ring which can conjure up anything he can imagine as a weapon. He better have a good imagination when he confronts the Parallax, a giant piece of the Nothing that consumes the lifeforce of everything, I gather, and destroys everything in its path with its various tentacles.

"Green Lantern" is a goofball comic-strip picture, short on logic and coherence, long on Hal's quips and elaborate action scenes. It is barely distinguishable from any other comic-book movie out there with the exception of the accent on the color green.  I have always liked Green Lantern from the comics but I gather this is one movie we did not need - it feels like a flavorless supersonic version of "The Matrix."  It is also another one of those movies where the laws of physics are grossly exaggerated, and where a human like Hal can be tossed from one room or wide open space to another without ever breaking a bone. I can handle that when it comes to a god like Thor or the Hulk or Spider-Man, but this Lantern seems impervious to any injury.

The Parallax is a fascinating looking monster - a former Guardian of the Universe who was exposed to the yellow energy of the fear. I wanted to see more of it rather than the painfully overwrought and uneven performance by Peter Sarsgaard who becomes an Elephant Man of sorts (with all due respect to John Merrick) after being exposed to the Parallax. Sarsgaard's character is a most unworthy villain when we learn little of his purpose or reasoning of trying to defeat Hal, other than being Carol's ex.

Ryan Reynolds is the right actor for the role, bringing it a level of exuberance and wit I had not seen from him before. But the movie directed by Martin Campbell (who made the roughest, toughest James Bond film in eons, "Casino Royale") exerts little patience for any real development of a story - his direction and Stuart Baird's editing zigzag all over the map from one situation and plot contrivance to another. I never got caught up in anything the Lantern(s) had to do except their mission - to destroy a giant gray cloud with spider legs. Not very momentous.

Do not touch Jodie Foster's hand puppet

THE BEAVER (2011)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

Mel Gibson with a hand puppet directed by forgiving star and friend Jodie Foster? I said heck no, especially after watching deliriously and unintentionally funny previews. "The Beaver" is not a complete mess but it is unfathomably ridiculous and so completely uneven and jagged that it is hard to relate to on any level.

A toy company owner, Walter Black (Mel Gibson), who is married and has two sons, has become a complete emotional wreck - he suffers from depression. His company is coming apart at the seams, his wife (Jodie Foster) is already planning to buy another house and move in with her two sons - all this after kicking Walter out. Walter stays at a motel and unsuccessfully attempts suicide. If you have the read the news of Mel Gibson's hateful rants in the last few years, you can't help but think this is a semi-autobiography. What we have not heard the actual Mel indulge in is using a beaver hand puppet that speaks with a Cockney accent! This is where the film lost me - the puppet speaks with this accent that comes out of nowhere. The film wants us to believe the hand puppet is almost speaking as an impulse and involuntarily, even though Walter has control of it. Bipolar much?

Once the beaver talks, Walter makes amends with his wife and his youngest son. When Walter has sex with his wife, he still needs the beaver! (No intentional puns here) Again, the film loses me when it resorts to the puppet. Walter still can't communicate with his eldest son, Porter (Anton Yelchin), a high-school student who is paid to write other students'  term papers and such. Guess who thinks he can make a difference with Porter...the beaver of course. Naturally, the toy company becomes a success thanks to the marketing of a novel toy designed by Walter - a beaver for goodness sakes!

One relationship stands out in "The Beaver" and that is Porter's relationship with the high-school valedictorian, Norah (another stunning performance by Jennifer Lawrence). When Porter is asked by her to write a valedictorian speech, he delves deep into her past. There are scars and some deep emotions are expressed - all thanks to actors who are not using beaver hand puppets.

I respect and admire Jodie Foster and I still think she had a remarkable directorial debut with "Little Man Tate." She is also an exceptional actress but she is lost in this film - a delicate flower who can't make head or tail about her husband's mental illness. "The Beaver" is clearly about mental illness but it is exceedingly outrageous in its conceit because it never cuts deep or rings true. It wants to be a black comedy with a dramatic pulse, or maybe the other way around. Maybe it is really about the impossibility of leading a suburban family existence without the aid of a puppet. Or maybe it is really the story of a mentally ill man. Or maybe I just didn't care.

Scorsese Rocks the Stones

SHINE A LIGHT (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Shine a Light" is a smashing entertainment - an electrifying concert film that will rev you up and make your eyeballs pop out of your head. The fact that it is the Rolling Stones performing should be enough to keep you elated but the fact that Martin Scorsese directs it is more than just praise - it was inevitable these two forces of rock and roll would come together.

The film was shot over two nights at the Beacon Theatre in New York City in late October 2006, as a benefit for the Clinton Foundation (Bill and Hillary Clinton can be seen briefly). Reportedly, the theatre was so small for a filmed concert that certain seats from the front had to be cut out so the cameras could fit (someone who attended the concert told me this was the case and a matter of inconvenience for the patrons). Nevertheless, what was filmed is truly spectacular. The Stones come on stage with an unabashed fury and resonance that I didn't see before in any prior Stones film. The 63-year-old singer Mick Jagger struts and dances and runs across the stage and through a catwalk-of-sorts that is a sight to see - a man in his sixties doing such voluminous body language is actually inspiring. Keith Richards picks that guitar and plays it like a demon, as does Ron Wood who both admit they play badly when they are not playing together. And it is wonderful to see straight-faced Charlie Watts playing the drums and even winking slightly to the camera. These performances are awe- inspiring and proof that this band is unstoppable and as spry as ever. They have also maintained their humor, especially craggy-faced Keith who quips to the audience: "It's good to see you all. It is good to see anyone!"

Just as demonic and ferocious in his fast-talking, humorous ways is Martin Scorsese. Seen briefly in the opening backstage scenes, trying to figure out what the playlist selections will be so he knows where to position the cameras (or knowing something as important as when Keith Richards will start riffing on his guitar in any opening number), Scorsese seems nervous yet cocksure - this is the Stones and he has used their music in his films. He has many cameras (sixteen of them) that will swoop up and down and come from the sides as furiously as the Stones will be on stage. "Shine a Light" is not a meditation on a band like Scorsese's "The Last Waltz" was on The Band. In fact, whereas "Last Waltz" was melancholic and had the occasional energy of a depleted band performing one last hurrah, "Shine a Light" is quixotic and a huge rush of caffeinated energy, with dazzling, dizzying camera shots from overhead and at low-angles, all cut together seamlessly. Not one inch of the stage is uncovered, not one performer is left out, not one close-up is omitted - this film is highly energized in its filmmaking, and it is actually up to the Stones to catch up with the cameras.

Occasionally, the film cuts to old documentary footage of the band, especially to some prophetic words from Mick Jagger as to whether they will be performing in their sixties. "Shine a Light's" chief concerns are with the glorious Stones and showing them perform with gusto and verve. I would not say this film is better than the chilling "Gimme Shelter" or that it is as awesome in its staging as in "At the Max" (if you have never seen it, do check it out, preferably in IMAX format). And yet, because of the show-stopping tunes and the showstopping band giving it 110% in ways never quite captured before on film, and using the intimate Beacon theatre as its stage, "Shine a Light" may well be the definitive, modern Rolling Stones concert film.

When Fresh Meadows was once Twin...

WHEN FRESH MEADOWS WAS ONCE TWIN...

By Jerry Saravia

I was a mere 9 years old when I lived in Fresh Meadows, NY in the Queens borough in 1980. I used to live on 194th St. and right across the street was the Queens Fresh Meadows Public Library. A block or two south took me to the one and only Fresh Meadows Twin Theaters. Price of admission for afternoon matinees were two dollars and with my weekly allowance, I would frequent the theater on a weekly basis. The films I had seen there were "Popeye," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Rad" (God, why did I see that? Just because I had a BMX bike?), "The Sword and the Sorcerer," "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," "Hercules," "The Natural," "Misunderstood," "Supergirl," "Nightmare on Elm Street 4," "Terms of Endearment," "A Christmas Story," "Victor, Victoria," "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" (about four times), "Always," "Breakin'" I and II, "Hook," "Rambo: First Blood Part II," "Another 48 HRS.," and on and on.

Inside the Fresh Meadows theater (ahhh, the days of balconies)

The inside of the movie theater looked like a palace and the actual screening room was vast, plus the sound system was excellent. It is interesting to note the films they played there because it was only a twin theater until sometime in 1987 or 1988 where they began showing 5 films and it became a Cineplex Odeon Theater (they would include the revolting "Cocktail," the action masterpiece "Die Hard" and the controversial "Mississippi Burning," not to mention "Madame Sousatska"). This may be because further south on the adjacent Horace Harding Expressway they had a multiplex (The Cinema 5 which had a beautiful mural outside of it) where they would show films that the Fresh Meadows theater would not show. For example, the "Superman" flicks were never shown at the Twin, nor were "Star Trek III" or "Star Trek IV" (those two were at the Cinema 5) nor any Elm Street sequels except for Part 4, or Kubrick's "The Shining" or "Full Metal Jacket" (at least this was all true from 1980-1989 when I eventually moved and only visited up until 1991). "The Last Temptation of Christ" may not have made it anywhere in Queens, to the best of my knowledge, since it was playing at one or two exclusive theaters in Manhattan. In fact, I don't think any Martin Scorsese flicks were shown at the Twin during that period except for "Raging Bull."

My memory of the twin theaters was of seeing those big, bright red letters on the marquee which gave me goosebumps every time I passed by there or went to see a film. My favorite memories are of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Rambo: First Blood Part II." I had no desire to see "Raiders" at that time because it looked like a western to me and not very exciting - of course, once I sat down to watch it, the film thrilled and spooked me to such a degree that I was literally grabbing the arms of my seat. Now I can't say I had the same experience with "Rambo" but I do remember my own classmates asking adults to pay for their ticket since it was restricted. Those were the days.

Below are pictures I located online of the various changes Fresh Meadows Twin went through since 1949.

1949 (Note the Meadows sign adjacent to the marquee)

Aerial view, 1951

1976 (Meadows sign still intact although "Rocky" seems to be the only film playing. I could not find any pics from 1980-1989 of the theater but I do remember that they did away with the Meadows sign. Also the Fresh Meadows neon letters from the top of the building were yellow. My apartment faced the back of that theater and had the same letters in yellow).

Today (No longer the twin and the neon letters above are now white which is not as striking) Another interesting change is that "Indy 4" is playing and it is simply called "Indy 4." Back in 1984, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" took over that whole side of the marquee with, again, bright red letters.

Where's my pot of gold?

LEPRECHAUN (1993)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

"Leprechaun" is a lethargic bore of an alleged horror movie. Alleged because there is no real horror in it at all. The idea of taking an Irish fairy and turning him into a slasher villain might appeal to those who like Frosty the Snowman and Santa Claus as deranged killers, but not me.

Warwick Davis plays the leprechaun who wants his precious pot of gold, a bag of a hundred gold coins. At the beginning of the film, a man named O'Grady has stolen the leprechaun's gold from Ireland and has relocated to a house in North Dakota. Leprechaun finds him, curses him with a heart attack (though the old Irish coot doesn't die) yet the little fairy finds himself encased in a crate with a four-leaved clover on the lid that imprisons him for a decade. Flash forward one decade and a mentally-handicapped painter (played by Mark Holton, whom you might remember from "Teen Wolf") inadvertently pushes aside the clover, lets the leprechaun loose, and finds his bag of gold. All the action takes place in the dilapidated O'Grady house where a young woman (Jennifer Aniston) and her father move into the house that needs to be painted. Of course, Aniston finds herself attracted to one of the painters, and blah, blah, blah.

Davis does the best he can do with a one-dimensional cretin but the filmmakers opt to introduce the character so early on (as in the opening sequence) that there is no level of surprise. Plus, the script never makes it clear how you can kill a Leprechaun - bullets do no harm but a four-leaved clover aimed inside his mouth might, provided the clover has a green glow. The body count is low for a slasher pic of this kind, which is fine by me, but why not make the leprechaun solely mischievous, rather than a monster who can use a pogo stick as a weapon! The best scene is when the leprechaun careens down a main road in a toy race car with the police in tow, asking him to pull over. But the rest of the movie is full of automatons rather than actors and an annoying leprechaun who keeps screaming, "Where is my pot of gold?" And to think there are five sequels to this movie simply makes the mind spin around and wonder how many gold coins the filmmakers got away with. I say stick with "Troll 2."

Coppola raises a humanized Count from the Dead

 BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA

 Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The 1922 silent masterpiece "Nosferatu," and its 1979 remake by Herzog are clearly the most lucid, atmospheric interpretations of the famous novel by Bram Stoker. There have been several remakes and sequels in their wake, so why keep remaking the oft-told story? We all know it by heart. Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is a visual symphony of horrors and an overblown, campy knock off of the legend. That's not to say that it isn't fun, it surely is, but scary? Not at all but it still compelling.

Coppola's "Dracula" starts off very promisingly and maintains an eerie, fairy-tale tone with nightmarish overtures from start to finish, complete with silhouettes, shadows, old transitional wipes such as irises, beautiful if ostentatious imagery and really fancy camera tricks, especially when we first visit Dracula's castle. Some of this represents Coppola's best directorial work ever and every image is stunning and truly remarkable with dissolves that are truly hypnotic.

The acting is uneven throughout. Gary Oldman ("J.F.K") plays Dracula fairly straight with an astonishing array of body movements and language (he's a bloodsucking, white-haired, venemous creature in the beginning) - I initially thought back in 1992 that his performance lacked passion and verve. It doesn't - he truly loves his Mina, the reincarnated love of his days as Vlad the Impaler. Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker is merely incompetent and unbelievable in a period setting - he reminded me too much of his Bill and Ted antics. Sir Anthony Hopkins overacts to the hilt as Professor Van Helsing, and has a moment where he smells Mina's fragrance reminding one of Hannibal Lecter. Winona Ryder, however, steals the movie as Mina (Harker's sweetie) and she is appropriately passionate and sexy, especially in the love scenes. She has that chemistry with Oldman that makes for some very erotic love scenes, in and out of the bedroom.

This "Dracula" is something of a technological marvel and a touching love story, more so than I had thought. It somehow works in the big egostistical way that some of Coppola's lesser efforts have. At times resembling more of a horror spoof, it is extraordinarily well-made and the snowy climax at Drac's castle is terrific, suspenseful stuff. Dear old Francis still leaves so little to the imagination and the gore is piled on scene after scene with none of the cold, chilling atmosphere of "Nosferatu" or Lugosi's "Dracula." The scene with the vampiric Lucy (Sadie Frost) approaching her tormentors as she carries a human child is not nearly as horrific as a similar scene in John Badham's 1979 "Dracula" version with Frank Langella.

Over-the-top, overstuffed, overdone and undernourished in certain character details (especially characters played by Cary Elwes, Bill Campbell and Richard E. Grant), Coppola's "Dracula" is never boring and somehow fun in a crude way. This Count does not suck and is given a measure of peace and humanity that has escaped many previous versions (and it practically tears away at Stoker's Victorian conventions with sexual acts galore). This is also one of those films that stays with you with its visual grandeur, gorgeous costumes and practical special-effects and a truly sympathetic Dracula.

Keep the Air Alive with Hard Harry

PUMP UP THE VOLUME (1990)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

 

When Hard Harry speaks in front of a microphone in his own pirate radio show, people listen. Hard Harry is in fact a teenager, and his listeners are largely teenagers (or so he assumes). "Pump Up the Volume" is a movie struggling to find answers in a new decade that was as empty as the 1980's were greedy. There were no easy answers, but there were tough questions that need to be asked.

Christian Slater is Hard Harry aka Mark Hunter, the disillusioned and quiet teenager from back East. He had friends then but his father (Scott Paulin), a district superintendent at the new Hubert Humphrey High in Arizona, decided to move the family to this new, anonymous town. Mark can talk to his friends in New York by way of a ham radio signal. Instead Mark decides to use his transmitter to communicate with his peers, whom he can't otherwise communicate with. A Goth girl named Nora (Samantha Mathis, who appears less Goth-like than Fairuza Balk) does notice Mark and suspects he is the DJ speaking to the masses when he returns a library book on the controversial Lenny Bruce. She follows him one day to find him taking out his mail from his P.O. Box - this is where he receives his letters that he reads on the air (especially if they come with phone numbers which he promptly calls).

His peers gather around parking lots and listen attentively to his show, broadcast every night at 10 pm. Things get awry when Hard Harry calls a suicidal listener - this one guy is ignored in school and kills himself. Of course, Harry doesn't expect this to happen, not to mention an ongoing revolution at school that raises the ire of parents and the teaching faculty. Meanwhile, Harry resists going on the air yet Nora eggs him to go on - he started this mess and he has to continue.

"Pump Up the Volume" is written and directed by Allan Moyle, who crafted the wonderful, dreamlike "Times Square" and also helmed the flawed yet unremarkably entertaining "Empire Records." Moyle listens to his teen characters and to Hard Harry - they suffer so much alienation from an adult world that can't and won't listen to them. Christian Slater is stunning in scenes where he talks about the world, the lack of imagination and that "all the great themes have been used up and turned into theme parks." He really comes alive as the DJ who listens to Leonard Cohen (two different versions of "Everybody Knows" are heard), Stan Ridgway and the Beastie Boys, and so amazingly forlorn and shy as Mark who can't say two words to Nora who is drawn to him. It is the adult characters who come across as indifferent and cliched, especially Annie Ross as the cartoonish principal who expels students for reasons that have nothing to do with academic records. We even have James Hampton as the head of the FCC who is nothing more than a political stooge who stays inside his limo.

When Moyle sticks to the disaffected teens and to Hard Harry's ramblings, the movie has power and is vital. Nothing can beat Cheryl Pollak as Miss Pretty Girl who decides to throw her cosmetics into a microwave and watch it explode! If the film had focused just on the teens without seeing it from the blander-than-thou point-of-view of the adults, "Pump Up the Volume" might have become a pop masterpiece. Interestingly, in the decade that followed, slackers were the new voice (sort of) and reality shows and grunge music took over signalling a catchphrase that had little to do with reality - Generation X. For all its flaws, "Pump Up the Volume" was pointing at some truths that never got addressed or put in any context in the strange, commercial 1990's. It is a shame. So much for, as Hard Harry puts it, "keeping the air alive."

Brainless Home Alone clone with a Cruel Twist

DON'T TELL MOM THE BABYSITTER'S DEAD (1991)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

I confess: I love the title of this movie. I thought for sure it was going to be a delightful black comedy about a nasty incident that could leave everyone in deep trouble. Alas, as often the case with movies that have great ideas, it all goes to hell, leaving us with a disposable teen comedy about maturing. Dead on arrival is more appropriate.

Christina Applegate has the lead role as Sue Ellen "Swell" Crandell, who at first is left to care for her three brothers and two sisters after Mom leaves for Australia for a new job! Of course, they are not left to their own devices when Mom surprises them with a mean babysitter (Eda Reiss Merin) who calls the children maggots. Well, before one starts to figure all the complications and comic frenzy that will ensue, the babysitter dies in the first ten minutes! Before you can say, well, how are these kids going to cope with this situation, the babysitter is left in front of a mortuary and cruelly placed in the luggage! And then the movie forgets there was even a babysitter as we see Sue applying for a designer job so she can take care of the family for the rest of the summer. Um, so what about the title? Why not call this "Home Alone" for the thoughtless MTV generation that, I believe, has outgrown the John Hughes formula for all it is worth by a different title? Originally, it was called "The Real World," and speaking of MTV...you see where I am going with this.

Applegate doesn't hold the big screen that well (yes, I had a crush on her at one time thanks to "Married With Children" but times change). There is one performance that works, though, and that is Joanna Cassidy as the vice president of the clothing manufacturing company that Sue works for. Cassidy is bright, elegant, engaging, but what the hell does her role have to do with the rest of the movie? Same with reliable actors like Jayne Brook, Josh Charles and David Duchovny in such thinly veiled roles that make no impression.

"Don't Tell Mom..." is the kind of movie with a solid premise that is abandoned for the sake of making yet another teen comedy about growth and maturation. The ending will be enough to make one gag at how incredulous the whole affair is. Keith Coogan, by the way, is the miscast stoner brother who, by listening to Julia Child and cutting his long hair, becomes wholesome and appealing. What universe does this movie think it belongs to?

A Gentle, caring Al Pacino

AUTHOR! AUTHOR! (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Along with the forgettable "Bobby Deerfield," "Author! Author!" may be the least known Al Pacino film of his entire career (of course, even lesser known is "Chinese Coffee" or "The Local Stigmatic"). That is a shame because Pacino shows his gift for comedy and it comes through with obvious hard edges. There is also a gentleness we often don't see from Pacino.

Pacino is an Armenian Broadway playwright, Ivan Travalian, who lives at home with a largely absent wife, Gloria (Tuesday Weld), and their four or five kids (I lost count). Ivan needs another big Broadway hit to keep his townhouse and his kids and wife happy. Nothing is as easy as it seems. Gloria is clearly having an affair yet remains mum about it. After Ivan is desperate for honesty from her, she admits to it and claims she needs a new husband (apparently, she is a serial wife!) Ivan is left with the kids to take care of, as most of them are stepchildren and foster children. Some of them leave the house to be with Gloria and her new husband, others with other stepparents, and so on. This drives Ivan nuts, to the point that he confuses names of his associates in the theatre world with other people, and he is also having problems with the second act of his play. Just when things could get worse, a movie star (Dyan Cannon) expresses interest in starring in his new play. Ivan and the actress have a fling and she ends up moving in to his apartment.

Talk about complications, and Pacino is the only actor alive who can make a messy existence tolerable and funny. One of Pacino's gifts is how much he can insinuate without doing his trademark hollering. He has moments where he does holler, particularly the scene where the producers of the play come to his house and ask him for a rewrite of his second act, while Ivan juggles a personal problem with a stepfather who wants custody of the daughter. All this leads to Ivan driving all the way to Connecticut from New York in a cab, and back (I'd hate to see how much that fare costs).

But Pacino also evokes Ivan's romantic side, and how easily women could fall for him (consider the scenes with Dyan Cannon who laughs at his wild antics). And there is a precious moment, exceedingly well- directed and timed, where Ivan is in his office typing, listens to a phone message where Cannon reveals her sexual demeanor while one of Ivan's sons stops in his tracks and listens attentively. It is Pacino's sly smile that sells the scene.

"Author! Author!" was not a success at the box-office and it may be because the public thought this was a family-friendly Al Pacino romantic comedy - they would've rather seen Pacino in "Godfather" mode possibly. A shame really because it is not a romantic comedy, though it has some elements of both. Instead it is a genteel, insightful adult drama of a man trying to keep his family together. As directed by veteran Arthur Hiller, this is not a sentimental family film nor does it end with the usual expectations (let me say that Dyan Cannon's character has some surprises in the narrative). It is Pacino at his most reserved and at his funniest, minus much of the hollering of course.

Interview with Pat Tallman: Actress, Stuntwoman, Philanthropist

INTERVIEW WITH PAT TALLMAN: ACTRESS, STUNTWOMAN, PHILANTHROPIST

BY JERRY SARAVIA

Pat Tallman as Barbara in the vastly underrated Night of the Living Dead (1990)

Tallman as a demon in Army of Darkness (1993)

Pat Tallman in her film debut, 1981's Knightriders

I first took notice of Pat Tallman when I saw the 1990 remake of "Night of the Living Dead." In the film, she plays Barbara, Johnnie's seemingly mousy sister who is attacked by zombies, survives, flees to a seemingly empty house and survives more zombie attacks. Unlike Judith O'Dea's Barbra character from Romero's 1968 original, Tallman's Barbara survives and becomes a warrior, a heroine who will help fight the fight - namely to get rid of all zombies. It is a stunning transformation and her character is possibly the first of its kind in the zombie genre, a precursor to Danai Gurira's Micchone in TV's "The Walking Dead."

Of course, "Night of the Living Dead" is not all she is known for. Tallman is known in the sci-fi world for not only her role as Lyta Alexander in TV's "Babylon 5," but also multiple roles in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" where she played Nima, Nurse Tagana and a weapons officer. She also played a Romulan, the evil Kiros and a security officer in "Star Trek: The Next Generation." She was also memorable as a she-demon fighting Bruce Campbell's Ash in "Army of Darkness."
   

Pat Tallaman as a Romulan/Alien in Star Trek: The Next Generation

When Pat isn't in the Trek or Babylon universe or fighting zombies (especially in 2009's "Dead Air"), she performs stunts and has done several (44 different credits) in everything from "Creepshow 2" to "Long Kiss Goodnight" to the first two "Austin Powers" movies to "Jurassic Park" (Laura Dern's stunt double) as well as "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, "Star Trek: Voyager" and the film "Star Trek Generations." And when she isn't acting or performing stunts, Pat Tallman is highly dedicated to helping abused kids in a charity called Penny Lane, a charity first introduced in the 1960's by Evalise Markovitz. Pat's own program that she began a decade ago is called "Be A Santa," which helps kids from Penny Lane celebrate Christmas.  


1.)  I couldn't help but notice that you started out acting before doing stunts. Why choose the dangerous, physical world of stunts?

Pat Tallman: It was something I fell into. Budum bump.

I always wanted to be Errol Flynn. I had taken fencing lessons in college and loved stage combat. When I got to New York, I took period sword technique classes, as a hobby. I met some stunt people in those classes and it all went downhill from there!   
 
And usually the way it is with stunts is you kind of apprentice with people that are already doing it. They teach you what you need to do, and if it looks like you show promise & can do the work & have the right attitude, then they'll give you more small jobs. I started with the soaps, which didn't have major stunts because of the budgets and how quickly they shot them. Stunts would mostly involve falling & small fights & things you normally wouldn't want to do with the actors. That's the kind of thing we did and I was very good at fights. Because it's choreography like with dancing. I doubled Tina Louise from Gilligan's Island in a really terrible movie called 'The Pool' falling out a balcony. And I had the right height and color to double for her. It was really exciting. I remember I had to just topple over this balcony & I fell into boxes, because it wasn't that high of a fall. 20, 30 feet. I remember the stunt guys being very indulgent and sweet with me.   
 
2.) When you are doing stunts, does the film director reach out to the stunt coordinator or, in your case, the stuntperson for the kind of stunt they want performed? Or do you make the suggestions, or is it all dependent on the director?

P.T.: The stunt coordinator, the producers and director figure out what they want (and can afford). Then the stunt coordinator communicates that to his stunt people.

Pat Tallman in 1997's Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery

3.) You've acted in a bit part in addition to doing stunts for "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery." Which do you prefer, acting or stunts?

P.T.: I wasn’t acting in a bit part. It was a stunt job. Because I can act as well, I was very suited for this job.
I did what I wanted to do as a stunt woman. I am looking forward to acting and producing now.
 
4.) I suppose this is a tough question but do you think stuntwomen get a bad rap, or is it any stuntperson? Having interviewed another stuntwoman, Leslie Hoffman, I wonder how often do you get credit for the stunts or is there more than one occasion where you are uncredited, as in "Long Kiss Goodnight" or "Addams Family Values?"

P.T.: I don’t think it’s a question of a ‘bad rap.’ The SAG contract states that stunt credits are at the producer’s discretion and you know that going in. Folks go to the movies or watch their favorite shows not because they want to see a stunt double. They want to see their favorite actor doing exciting things.

5.) I've read a book called "Burns, Falls and Crashes: Interviews with Movie Stunt Performers." Any stunt that you absolutely will not do, such as fire?

P.T.: I won’t do what I do not think I am qualified to do. I don’t know why you say fire. I am experienced in burns and have done them. I will not do motorcycles, since I have no experience with them.

Pat Tallman as Lyta in Babylon 5

6.) In terms of acting roles, what is your favorite role, the one closest to you?

P.T.: Lyta and Barbara are both very fond memories. I am very proud of my stage work such as Rosalind in As You Like It with the Riverside Shakespeare Company in NYC.

7.) Now that you have worked with George Romero a couple of times, any chance you might appear in another "Dead" film? (they apparently using some of the same cast members, including Tony Todd, from the 1990 remake for yet another remake).

P.T.: No. I don’t ever go backwards. Been there, done that.

8.) Is there a role you would love to play, something literary or otherwise?

P.T.: I am looking forward to what comes and what I can create as a producer.
 
9.) I like to ask about charities. How did the Penny Lane charity come about?

P.T.: Penny Lane is a wonderful group home for kids who are in serious need. It really spoke to me. These kids have no one and next to nothing. They are very troubled, difficult kids. This became a passion for me: to help these children. I love the people at Penny Lane who work with these kid every day.

You can read about it here http://www.pennylane.org on my site at http://www.patriciatallman.net and on my social media. Thank You!

Patricia Tallman's Facebook page
Twitter: @patriciatallman
Google Plus: +PatriciaTallman

Darth Vader turns to Evil

STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Original Review from 2005

 "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" is an unpretentious, darkly humorous ride, and quite possibly the most significant "Star Wars" film since "Return of the Jedi." It is chock full of glorious action setpieces, double crosses, deceit, some political mumbo-jumbo (no filibustering this time), and plenty of lightsaber battles (oh, and Jar Jar Binks who doesn't utter a single word). As eye-poppingly entertaining as it is, it sets a more sinister tone for the series, ending more on a bang with a cold heart than a joyous, heartwarming one. In other words, this film comes as close to the spirit of "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" than either of the last two prequels.

Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is as reckless as ever as the Jedi who longs to be a Jedi Master. In the opening sequence, Anakin and his master, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor), are trying to rescue the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from the clutches of a Sith lord, Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), and some evil, skeletal droid commander named General Grievous who seems ready to cough up a lung. Count Dooku, as you may recall from "Episode II," was the Emperor's right-hand man and apprentice. After Dooku's brief exit, General Grievous seems to be the last hope for the Emperor in his desire for the Sith to rule the galaxy. Or so we think.

Meanwhile, Anakin is dealing with joining the Jedi Council and wondering if he should spy on the Chancellor. Naturally, the Chancellor wants Anakin to spy on the Jedi Council. There is also the growing anger within Anakin, fully exploited by the Chancellor who, in a riveting scene, describes the seduction of the Dark Side of the Force. The lure, the seduction is there, but will Anakin turn and believe the Chancellor's Jedi conspiracy theory? And what of Anakin's secret marriage to Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman), who is now pregnant with twins? Romance, marriage, Luke and Leia! A Jedi craves not these things.

Unless you live in a galaxy, far, far away, you know very well that Anakin Skywalker will become Darth Vader, the Dark Lord of the Sith who ruled the galaxies and surrounding systems in the original trilogy. It is the transition that we are interested in, the eventual transformation into the dark helmeted, leather-strapped, machine-breathing Darth Vader, and I am happy to say that it works beautifully. George Lucas handles it as well as one can imagine, and Hayden Christensen brings that seething, slow boil to the character in a startling way. Though the actual turn to the Dark Side is somewhat abrupt, what follows is not. We see a hooded Anakin marching to his own beat as he helps destroy all the Jedi knights, fearing they will destroy the Senate and the Chancellor (a misguided fellow, this Anakin is). His capricious longing to be the most powerful Jedi ever is evident, and we watch with uncomfortable ease as he decimates all the Jedi without mercy.

So what else can you expect in "Episode III" besides Anakin's gradual transformation? There are lightsaber battles galore, including General Grievous armed with four lightsabers! Obi-Wan riding a huge lizard while the Clone Wars are fought! The wise Yoda rubbing his head as he strongly feels the disturbance in the Force, though this little green gremlin is still aces with a lightsaber. Samuel L. Jackson's Mace Windu fully engaged with his purple lightsaber. There is also the dastardly, powerful Emperor whose verbal tongue, corroded with the Dark Side, is as consuming as his knowledge of the Force. And there are the lava lakes of Hell, or more appropriately Mustafar, where Anakin faces Obi-Wan in "Lord of the Rings" fashion. We are talking the depths of Hell here, folks, and even less inviting than Mordor. We are talking about the declining and eventual eradication of goodness of Anakin Skywalker.

Being a minor fan of the last two prequels (oh, heavens, don't say it is so Jerry. You actually liked "The Phantom Menace"? Hate mail to be delivered by torpedo), "Revenge of the Sith" certainly delivers with a major bang, and writer-director Lucas has pulled out all the stops for a grand finish. Every sequence is jaw-dropping in its visual imagination of new worlds and wondrous new galactic spaceships. The lightsaber battles are as grippingly intense as ever. There is a battle with the Wookies that will have fans cheering (yes, indeed, Chewbacca does fleetingly return). And, as in the previous films, people indoors face enormous windows where dozens of ships are headed somewhere (the air traffic jams must be horrendous considering a war is going on). In terms of special-effects backgrounds, lavish cityscapes and incorporating seamless CGI with live action, George Lucas and his ILM team have outdone themselves yet again. Just looking at the opening sequence, bordering on the usual laser beam battles amongst cruisers and TIE fighters, the ships move with such three-dimensionality that you may end up on the edge of your seat. Considering that Lucas is re-releasing this saga in 3-D, it will be even more awesome than ever (UPDATE: Apparently not. Some theatergoers found the 3-D effects in "Phantom Menace" to be fuzzy).

All effects aside, "Revenge of the Sith" is occasionally uneven despite a lightning pace and several frenetic action scenes. I admire the innocent relationship between Anakin and Padme but it is still wooden compared to Han Solo and Princess Leia's romance. In fact, Christensen and Portman are at their best when tension grows between them - her gradual shock and his malevolent side works nicely in contrast. The Wookie battle is terrifically fun to watch, but it is so short that you'll wonder what the purpose was (I suppose Master Yoda was looking for new armies to recruit). The movie also has a slightly weak section involving the destruction of the Jedi Knights - we see two or three of them killed but what about all the others? Darth Vader is supposed to have hunted down and destroyed all the Jedi Knights. A scene involving an implied killing of "younglings" may be a little too intense for tots, but more violence (did I just say that?) may have paved the way to understanding Anakin's emergence into evil.

These criticisms are highly subjective. "Revenge of the Sith" may not be as grandiose in its emotional context as say "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" but this is Star Wars, not the land of Frodo and friends. There is nothing as revelatory as Vader's famous line to his offspring, Luke, in "The Empire Strikes Back," but there are still a few surprises in "Sith." The malicious nature of Palpatine and (spoilers ahead) his twisted Darth Sidious, also known as the Emperor, is almost Shakespearean in tone, especially as he persuades Anakin to turn to evil. Yoda is the biggest marvel of this prequel trilogy as he expounds on his philosophy using backward oracular phrases. His rousing confrontation with the Emperor is a spectacular display of action and seamless animation - Yoda is no longer a puppet held by Frank Oz, as you all know. Brief appearances by C3PO and R2-D2 (who supplies a lot of the film's humor) are welcome.

But major kudos must go to Hayden Christensen, no longer the wimpish, rebellious teenager of "Attack of the Clones" - he shows how cruel and malevolent a Sith lord can be. And the sad conclusion of his destiny is truly tragic and paints a new picture on the original trilogy.

"Revenge of the Sith" is superb entertainment guaranteed to please most "Star Wars" fans, if not all of them. George Lucas has given us his final hurrah to a thirty-year endeavor that began with the most influential phenomenon of the twentieth century. For many of us (myself included), "Sith" is as fitting a reminder of that nostalgia as "Star Wars" gets.