Hitch's bio treats the actors as cattle

HITCHCOCK (2012)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

One of the most famous Hitchcock biographers, Donald Spoto who wrote "The Dark Side of Genius," had written that the Master of Suspense had a creepy fascination with blonde women and that it led to some weird goings-on with one of his lead blonde actresses, Tippi Hedren ("The Birds"). The watchable if highly uneven biographical film, "Hitchcock," lays the claim that Hitchcock not only loved blonde women, he was also just as voyeuristic as his cinematic alter-egos and had fantasies that may have crossed the line. It also stipulates that his fascination with the macabre led to him making the trendsetting "Psycho."

"Hitchcock" begins with the director (Anthony Hopkins) just coming off the grand success of 1959's "North By Northwest." A reporter tells the 60-year-old that it may be time to quit. Nonsense! Robert Bloch's novel titled "Psycho" was to be Hitch's next project - a controversial one since it is declared obscene and beneath the Master's standards by the honcho at Paramount Pictures. Regardless, Hitchcock and his wife Alma (an excellent Helen Mirren) put their house up to self-finance the picture, with the hopes that Paramount will distribute the film. While making the film on a low-budget by Hitch's own standards, he begins having nightmares about the notorious Ed Gein (Michael Wincott), the Wisconsin killer whose unsavory methods of keeping mementos of his victims became the basis for Bloch's novel. Meanwhile, Alma is assisting a womanizing screenwriter (Danny Huston) with his own Hitchcock-like spy thriller.

I confess that I do not recollect specific details of the book this movie is based on, "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho" by Stephen Rebello, but I do not recall reading about Alma and her efforts to help make the film viable and a success. It is true that she spotted Janet Leigh's pupil almost imperceptibly moving during the moment her character is slumped over the bathtub, but Alma's arrival at the studio during Hitch's brief flu sickness is fiction. Nonetheless, the filmmakers opt to focus precious little on the actors in "Psycho," especially Anthony Perkins (James D'Arcy), Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson, who is adept at capturing the actress' charm) and Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), which the book devoted a lot of attention to. Instead we get Hitch's nightmarish visions of speaking to Ed Gein who instructs the Master on how Gein carved up his victims! Are you kidding me? And the Alma scenes with the screenwriter simply detract from the more exciting behind-the-scenes spectacle of making a horror classic. And though we get some insight into Hitchcock's own adoration of blondes, very little is mentioned of how specific he was with their clothing appearance - it is mostly an afterthought.

On the plus side, Anthony Hopkins is brilliant as Hitchcock, capturing the Master's walk, his thick accent, and the specific body language such as having his hands clasped around his belly - it is a marvelous performance that holds the movie together. Same with Helen Mirren as the overworked Alma who stands by her man - she has one emotionally charged scene that shows why the actress is the cat's pajamas. But the meat and bones of the script should be the making of "Psycho" as a whole, and it is abandoned in favor of fruitless and spurious relationships. 

Odd and touching Zombie romance

WARM BODIES (2013)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Just when you think you have had enough of zombies and think every variation has been tapped, "Warm Bodies" comes along and delivers a few, well, fresh "dead" notes. It is actually one of the most charming, soulful and often unsettling horror-comedies in a long while.

"R" (Nicholas Hault) is a zombie who is no typical zombie - he has thoughts and we hear his voice-over narrate the film. "R" is a young man, dressed in jeans and a red hoodie. He keeps to himself but he does try to communicate thru grunts and semi-speech patterns, especially with another zombie named "M" (Rob Corddry). They are all zombies as they parade around an airport and the surrounding airfield, walking in a daze with no particular destination. It is not just a zombie world - there is a wall dividing them and the surviving humans who have formed a militia (none of this will seem unique if you have seen George Romero's "Dead" films or TV's "The Walking Dead"). Julie (Teresa Palmer) is a member of the militia, headed by her straight-as-an-arrow father, Colonel Grigio (John Malkovich). After Julie and a small armed group are sent to recover medical supplies from the deserted buildings off the beaten path, a zombie attack occurs where everyone dies except Julie. "R" is transfixed by Julie, takes her away from harm's away by secluding her in an airplane, which is "R"''s little home. Julie realizes that "R" is not like the other undead - he expresses feelings and slowly develops a "beating heart." Did you read that correctly? Yes, indeed, he has fallen in love with Julie though the reasons will not be revealed here.

"Warm Bodies" is built on clever surprises, some of which were unfortunately revealed in the film's trailer. It doesn't matter because you will be swept away by the romance between "R" and Julie. The tension builds when the two get separated and "R" tries his best to locate her, which means breaching the fortified wall to locate her. "Warm Bodies" often treads on "Twilight's" own waters but this movie can stand on its own lively "dead" feet. It has an apocalyptic feel with its grayish skies and unnerving sense of abandonment, a horrific element with the "Boneys" (skeletal zombies who feast on humans), a love story that resonates with two charismatic stars (keep an eye on Teresa Palmer's career), and compassionate zombies who begin to remember their own past lives when they glance upon objects or store windows that serve as triggers.

Ably directed with a strong emotional chord by Jonathan Levine ("50/50"), "Warm Bodies" manages to say so much in 97 minutes than movies at twice that length. It also breathes new life into the zombie genre with offbeat gestures that not even George Romero would've cooked up. A zombie with feelings who can recover memories from a human it has eaten?  

Some of this con actually happened

AMERICAN HUSTLE (2013)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Shared with 12 Years a Slave as my selection for Best Film of 2013)

I've often said that the best films are the ones dependent on the characters to motivate the narrative, to drive it rather than the narrative driving them. David O. Russell is a writer and director who knows this all too well. Though I've only been privy to Russell's early work up until "Three Kings," and have since been privy to one of his most stellar, humanistic works, "Silver Linings Playbook," I can say with complete assurance that "American Hustle" is an unforgettable, emotionally draining and downright dazzling masterpiece - a film that unfolds with crackling intensity and crackerjack storytelling not to mention supremely unsavory characters who dare us to like them and sympathize with them.

Right at the start of the film, I knew I was in for a wild ride thru bad 1970's hair and sparkling, glitzy costumes. Christian Bale is Rosenfeld, a con-artist with a comb over who participates in nutty surveillance scenarios with a glib FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper with perm hair). DiMaso wants to make a name for himself, insists on inflating the FBI's budgetary concerns for wild setups that involve a fake Arab sheik (and a scam known as Abscam) and the boisterous, caring New Jersey mayor (Jeremy Renner, a major departure from his heroic roles) whom they convince to renovate Atlantic City. This involves some major persuasion from both the FBI and the mayor, which includes wiring two million dollars to a mobster, renting a luxury jet for an hour and using the whole floor of a ritzy hotel for illegal transactions. Hopefully the fake sheik, one of two, knows some Arabic too.

Other members of this con within a con come into play. Amy Adams, in the most electrifying performance of her career, is Rosenfeld's mistress, Sydney, who adorns a fake British accent and immerses herself in the whole con game right from the start. She loves it, whether it is the mink coats, the flashy parties, persuading clients to fork over money, etc. Even after she is caught in these fraudulent scams and partakes in essentially scamming for the federal government, she still loves it - there is a thrill in the allure and the danger of it. Less enthused by all the hoopla is Rosenfeld's emotionally aching and nervously jittering and seemingly anti-social wife, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence, a marvel of a performance from an actress whom I have the deepest admiration), who hates Sydney and hates her husband too.

Some critics have compared this to Scorsese's "GoodFellas" but that is only fitfully on the surface - "American Hustle" is not as daring or as kinetic as any similar Scorsese tales of excess and hubris. What makes "American Hustle" far more tantalizing than Scorsese's films, however, is that director David O.Russell (and co-writer Eric Warren Singer) sympathizes with his characters and gives them emotional weight - this is one of the few recent American films where I felt like I was really listening to people who listen to each other. There is genuine heartbreak in each character, from Sydney's own manipulative games that barely conceal her love for Rosenfeld, to Richie DiMaso's hope for love and a romp in the hay with Sydney, to Rosenfeld's own heart problems and his desire to have custody of his son, to Rosalyn's wounded and pained life that is momentarily relieved when she listens to Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die," to the New Jersey mayor with a big family who doesn't want to let anyone down, least of all the state of New Jersey.

"American Hustle" also does something Scorsese's films never do - it forgives the characters' trespasses. Whereas Scorsese purposely distances us from clinging to his characters like Henry Hill or most recently Jordan Belfort in "Wolf of Wall Street" so as to observe their actions and make our own judgments, David O. Russell is the apologist, the one who forces the viewer to get close, to feel like his characters are one of us and to spring a touch of hope. Added to this is stunningly alert filmmaking that whips us around from one edge of the screen to other, and yet O. Russell manages to convey just as much with stillness when needed. The performances are vibrant and crackle and pop with the sensation of living a life (Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper should've won a special Academy Award). Along with David Mamet's "House of Games," an American classic in my mind about how con men really operate, "American Hustle" is the most fun I've ever had with the art of the con.  

Bust a move in a traffic jam

HULK (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2003)

Now that comic-book movies are a hot property again, it was a matter of time before the 15-foot creature known as the Hulk would arrive on screen. The growling, muscle-bound creature with green skin would make Arnold Schwarzenegger blush, and I am proud to say that his arrival on the big screen makes for one of the best Marvel comic-book adaptations yet. Truth be told, this is not a special-effects-laden picture nor is it a spectacularly exciting, fast-moving adventure like "Spider-Man." There are shock and awe moments in "Hulk" but this is more of a psychological study than the average summer blockbuster and, in that respect, it is a solidly good picture.

Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is a brainy scientist working at a government lab with his ex-girlfriend, Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). Their latest experiment where they use frogs as guinea pigs goes haywire (a joke about exploding frogs is one of the few instances of humor in the movie). Nevertheless, a corporate executive named Talbot (Josh Lucas) sees potential in their experiments, and so does Betty's estranged father, General Ross (Sam Elliott). Bruce is emotionally distant and repressed, and has recurring nightmares of his days as a kid living near a military site where an atomic explosion took place. There is also the darker memory of his father turning into some raging creature behind closed doors. A janitor claims to be Bruce's father, David Banner, though Bruce had been told that his father died. Nick Nolte is the wild-haired, maniacal Bruce who has scientific ambitions regarding DNA and radiation. Apparently, David had injected himself with DNA codes that he later injected on his own son. Whatever it was, it transforms Bruce when a massive dose of radiation is set loose during a lab accident. Bruce comes away unscathed but he also feels stronger and healthier - plus, the pain in his knee is gone. But when he loses his temper and starts to think about his traumatic childhood, he changes into a massive creature who is impervious to any weapon, including an entire military arsenal. Tanks, missiles and zero gravity can hardly hurt the Hulk - he just gets momentarily dazed. Mutant dogs, courtesy of David Banner, are pounded to the ground with incredible force. This Hulk can jump incredible distances and run as fast as any Marvel superhero. But beware if he enters the city of San Francisco, he'll induce a massive traffic jam.

Ang Lee, director of noble dramas like "The Ice Storm" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," has wisely chosen to focus less on special-effects than on character specifics. Lee's interest lies in the psychology of the characters, including David Banner's growing madness with his past and his son's future to make his own future possible. There is also the seething General Ross who had David put away for more than thirty years for representing a threat to society, no doubt incurred by his dastardly experiments. As played by Nolte, David comes across as one of the strangest mad scientists ever seen on screen (his constant mumbling may put off many but his presence is never less than commanding). If anyone should have fathered the Hulk, it would have to be someone as titanic in screen presence as Nolte.

I do have some quibbles about Bruce Banner. The character, as played by Bana, comes off as slightly bland and banal. He doesn't have the urgency of the late Bill Bixby from the famous TV series - Bana seems to be sleepwalking through his part. There is also scant chemistry between him and Jennifer Connelly yet there are some occasional sparks of mutual admiration (I like the scene where she claims to have a thing for emotionally distant men). A crucial scene after Bruce's initial transformation indicates his joy of changing into an indestructible monster. The problem is the movie never delves into how Bruce feels mentally and physically when he changes - we just accept that this is something that happens when he loses his temper. In the TV show, we always knew how Banner felt about changing - in the series's entire run, he was seeking a cure because he hated to change.

"Hulk" may be appeal to thrill-seeking teens who get off on seeing the Hulk get mean and green. However, such scenes are strictly limited, though there is a tense climax towards the end that may please those who need their pulse-pounding thrills every second. "Hulk" is a thinking man's comic-book movie (sort of a less dour though no less humorous "Unbreakable"), relying on characters who are undergoing psychological repression. All their feelings come out in a compelling film full of brio and energy. A weak lead character can't quite destroy the Hulk - he just needs to lighten up a little and control that temper.

You wouldn't like me when I yawn

THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Why on earth did Edward Norton make a boring Hulk movie? Why do moviegoers hate Ang Lee's "Hulk" so much? Why even bother with essentially reimagining or remaking, or whatever you want to call it these days, the 2003 box-office bust that was "Hulk"? These questions plagued me while watching "The Incredible Hulk," which is a mediocre and completely flat, superficial superhero movie that tries to do too much and accomplishes too little.

Edward Norton initially makes a convincingly scrawny Bruce Banner, living in Brazil and working at a soda factory. He has maintained communication with a genetic scientist who may know how to cure Bruce's Green Giant anger problem. Unfortunately, a drop of Bruce's blood that accidentally falls into an open soda bottle is all that is needed to raise awareness from the government and the sour, unemotional General Ross (William Hurt). The military arrives armed and ready to shoot Bruce Banner, though there is a new foe, a Marine named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), who is interested in acquiring a sample of that genetic Hulk pool. Most plaguing question: if General Ross only wants to capture the Hulk and use him as a weapon, how is killing Bruce Banner going make that possible? The answer may be that the General will use Blonsky as his new guinea pig, though the script never quite makes that clear. Nevertheless, Betty Ross (the pallid Liv Tyler) is waiting in the wings for Bruce to show up, despite being lovey-dovey with a new beau. How can anyone compete with the Green Giant? Oh, well, he has one deficiency - he can't get too excited and have sex.

The origin plot of the Incredible Hulk since its inception in the late 60's never made a lot of sense - what is the point of using a genetically-engineered Hulk as a secret weapon when his animal instincts cause him to destroy everything in his path? Does that not defeat the purpose, General Ross? Yes, I am asking you, Mr. Ross. Of course, that would not matter if the film was entertaining and thrilling. Face it: the sight of an enormous Hulk wrecking havoc is always fun to watch. And the scenes where Hulk destroys a few vehicles on a college campus is exciting and nifty...and just as dispiriting. The lack of spirit can be attributed to director Louis Letterier ("Transporter") and star Edward Norton who seem to go through the motions. Numerous action-filled moments of Hulk throwing a car or a tank in the air or causing the ground beneath him to break become monotonous. So does Edward Norton, who never quite infuses Bruce Banner or the Hulk with any personality or any depth to his anger issues. Norton never becomes convincingly angry either, and how can Edward Norton of "American History X" never come across as convincingly angry? It just seems like a disservice to have a weakling still come across as a tall green-skinned weakling with muscles - there is no real sense of transformation or urgency. The theme seems to be this: Hulk loves to smash.

A big mistake is the casting of Tim Roth, who comes across as evil, mean and most certainly angry, though it is such a one-dimensional character that it is hard to care whether he lives or dies - he is just a mean prick from the beginning. Perhaps Tim Roth should've played Bruce Banner - he might have come closer to tapping into that inner rage that is the Hulk in all of us. Eric Bana came close but the late Bill Bixby fully accomplished that goal. This is where a good screenplay is needed, folks. The cast of characters are limp and underwritten. William Hurt delivers no zeal or emotion as the angry General Ross. Compare Hurt's take to Sam Elliott's in the 2003 Hulk and you see a world of difference. Ditto for Liv Tyler who is uncharismatic and lifeless that I can't believe this is the same actress from "Lord of the Rings" or even "Heavy." And she scores a -15 on any chemistry with Norton. Check out Jennifer Connelly from, once again, the 2003 Hulk for a more well-rounded character.

This "Hulk" film is a dull disaster with an unconvincing love story, non-threatening villains, lots of amped-up explosions, and a lead character who hardly seems to be the same person that becomes the Hulk. For a fully developed and humanistic take on a raging Hulk and a complex Bruce Banner who wishes for the beast to be expunged, check out the TV series or the 2003 Hulk. This droning Hulk of a movie is for the birds.

Technology will save the Motor City

ROBOCOP (1987)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Revisiting "Robocop," the ultraviolent 1987 action flick by Paul Verhoeven, is a lot like revisiting a nightmare of a satire that may have lost some of its oomph in its near thirty year inception. In 2014, "Robocop" is hardly as ultraviolent as it once was, and its satiric targets may not strike as sharply as they once did. As a techno action thriller, "Robocop" delivers the goods but it lacks any tangible emotional surface.

Peter Weller is Murphy, a Detroit cop of the future who has been transferred to the worst section of the Motor City. His detective partner, Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), can handle herself better than any cop in the precinct. Trouble brews all over town when cops are killed, gangs dominate the streets and trash and rob everyone - in short, it is anarchy. A corporation by the name of OCP (Omni Consumer Products) wants to fight crime by using advanced robots with strategic commands in their memory banks. Murphy dies in a run-in with bank robbers and narcotics dealers (the leader is played by the frighteningly intense Kurtwood Smith), but Murphy's brain survives long enough to become part of an experiment. Enter Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), an ambitious OCP executive, who wants a new kind of robot cop - one that has a human brain (although why all human memories have to be erased is questionable - why not just forgo a human brain for an electronic one? But then we wouldn't have a movie). Now Murphy is Robocop, his human face intact but largely consisting of a metal endoskeleton. His instincts slowly become human. And detective Lewis recognizes who the robocop actually is.

"Robocop" does the job of a techno action thriller efficiently, and there is a level of witty satire with regards to TV commercials of the future. Even better is the introduction of the ED-209 prototype robot where a test run goes horribly wrong. The movie doesn't quite cling long enough on Murphy before he becomes Robocop. We see flashes of his past home life but they are infrequent flashes. To Peter Weller's credit, he makes us care for this walking metal contraption with an electronic voice - his body language and his facial reactions elicit a lot of sympathy (compare them to Robert Burke's monotone look in "Robocop 3" and you'll see the difference).

"Robocop" is enjoyably dirty, messy fun (one of the criminals' vehicles hits a toxic waste barrel that can still shock by today's standards). Nothing can beat watching Miguel Ferrer trouncing his OCP rivals, or partying with hookers and ingesting lines of coke. I wish there was more Murphy backstory but why carp when you got Dan O'Herlihy as an "Old Man" CEO? 

Lizards! Why did it have to be lizards?

JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (2012)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I have not seen the 1950's version of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" with James Mason in eons. "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" is not a sequel to that film - it is a sequel to the 2008 remake starring Brendan Fraser. Although the latter is unseen by me, I can safely say that "Journey 2" is a goofy, wholly unbelievable fantasy adventure that is perfect family viewing.

Josh Hutcherson is Sean, a young "Vernian" high-school student (Vernian as in a Jules Verne addict - who knew?) who in the opening scene of the movie is chased by cops after he has broken into a satellite facility. All this trouble just to boost a coded message from his grandfather (Michael Caine) who is in the "Mysterious Island" - the grandfather sends encrypted messages by use of a ham radio! I am glad to see such ancient technology finds it way in 21st century movies. Sean discovers his grandfather's whereabouts and gets his stepdad (Dwayne Johnson) to fly with him out to Palau where they get a pilot aching for money (Luis Guzman) and his reluctant daughter (Vanessa Hudgens) to continue a hazardous journey to that island. Only problem is there is an intense hurricane on route in the Pacific. Nevertheless, after arriving in this fantasy island, we see giant lizards, elephants in Lilliputian size, giant bees, giant butterflies, Captain Nemo's Nautilus buried deep in the water, electric eels, volcanoes that spew golden nuggets, etc. This is the kind of silliness where two people can take a deep breath underwater long enough to enter the Nautilus while evading an electric eel and turn the power on! I could be wrong but I think they hold their breath longer than Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps.

"Journey 2" is bright, breezy fun, a sort of junior-league adventure movie for those who find "Jurassic Park" too intense. Do not expect a literal translation of Jules Verne's own novel which had a completely different story and subtext. In fact, this movie exists outside of it, in reference and code and homage only. Aside from the Nautilus, there is no Nemo to be found except his grave, and monsters and bees used as carriers are nowhere to be found in Verne's text (nor are the Polynesian jokes and Dwayne's vibrating nipples). This is shamelessly goofy fun for the Nickelodeon set, and it might inspire young impressionable kids to read Jules Verne. That is a plus nowadays.

Technology that is loyal to puppies

ROBOCOP 3 (1993)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Paul Verhoeven's original, dazzling "Robocop" was a superviolent action marvel of a movie, perhaps one of the earliest antecedents of Christopher Nolan's own "Dark Knight" trilogy two and a half decades later. It was entertaining, tough as nails and had a satirical view of the future. The 1990 sequel was a disaster, sacrificing humor and any level of satire for far more graphic violence and little of what made Robocop tick. Fred Dekker takes on the directing reigns for number three, and the results are mixed, dour and diluted at best.

The near-bankrupt city of Detroit is about to become Delta City, which means revamping old neighborhoods and forcing people to evacuate to camps. A resistance group has formed and wants to fight back against the New Rehabs, an elite police unit created by OCP (Omni Consumer Products). There is some business here about a lost child (who is a whiz with hacking into computers and robots) who loses his parents during the liquidation of citizens. Robocop (now played by Robert Burke) develops emotions and deliberately fights back against the OCP (who created him in the first place) by joining the resistance!

There is some untapped potential here, especially with dramatizing how corporations can own everything and assume all citizens will do their bidding. In fact, some of this quite prescient in 2014. Alas, the idea is prescient but the execution is ill-defined. The filmmakers never spend much time with the resistance group (how can you curtail CCH Pounder's character, easily the most interesting character in the entire movie?) and spend even less time with Robocop, particularly his emotions that come to the surface (for newbies, he was once a cop named Murphy). Nancy Allen, reprising her role as Murphys' cop partner for the third time, is in it for a paycheck when she exits rather early in the proceedings. Mostly we get scenes of a Japanese businessman (Mako) who may or may not be evil - he sends ninja androids to counter any opposition and they both eventually go mano-a-mano with Robocop. One of these ninja androids smokes! Little color or variety is allowed for the resistance group - when we see them at work preparing to fight the cops, it isn't long before an action scene develops that comes out of nowhere. The filmmakers never take a moment to invest in this motley crew.

"Robocop 3" is busy with many characters and subplots (Rip Torn comes off best as a OCP President) but it never develops them into a coherent screenplay and logic is thrown out the window early on. Co-written by Dekker and Dark Knight comic-book writer Frank Miller (his contributions are clearly truncated), the PG-13 sensibility is to draw a younger crowd to the chrome metal hero. Only problem is he, and the rest of the characters, are reduced to scrap metal parts in search of a movie.

The Real Fantastic Four

THE INCREDIBLES (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2004)

Maybe it is really high praise but "The Incredibles" is the best superhero movie I've seen in a while, a high-octane, comically dazzling, jazzy, relentlessly funny, grab-the-arms-of-your-seat type adventure. As pure entertainment, it sets a whole new standard to any comic-book or animated movie I've seen. It is so damn good that I could have sat down for another viewing.

Craig T. Nelson is the voice behind Bob Parr, the patriarch of an amazing family, who works a monotonous job at an insurance agency (he gives his rejected clients tips on how not to be rejected in the future). Bob was not always so bored with his work, he used to be a superhero known as Mr. Incredible. The problem is that Mr. Incredible faced one too many lawsuits from saving people who did not want to be saved. Therefore, Bob and his family had to constantly relocate thanks to a superhero relocation program. Bob's wife is Helen, also known as Elastigirl (voiced by Holly Hunter), who hopes Bob can make something of his life beyond superheroic duties. They have three children, the kind that would give parents nightmares. There is Dash (voiced by Spencer Fox), the fast-as-the-speed-of-light runner in the family who loves to play pranks with his teenage sister, Violet (voiced by Sarah Vowell). Violet's specialty is that she can turn invisible except for her clothes. There is also the newborn baby who has trouble mimicking her mother's eating habits (oh, yes, he has superhuman abilities but they are best left undiscussed here).

Naturally, it doesn't take long before Bob Parr is asked to reprise his superhero duties by some secret agency. The trouble is that Bob is overweight and can't fit into his spandex suit. So the Edith Head of superhero costume fitters, Edna Mode (voiced by writer-director Brad Bird), designs a spanking new suit for the hero and off he goes to save the world. Unfortunately, the agency may have an ulterior motive when it is discovered that it is run by Bob's archnemesis, Syndrome (voiced by Jason Lee), wants to destroy Mr. Incredible and uncover his identity. Now that Bob is in trouble, the family will have to band together and save him. Yes, there is more than a passing nod here to The Fantastic Four.

"The Incredibles" is rich in character details and nuances, showing the kind of depth in superheroes you rarely see in this genre. Brad Bird (writer and director of the underappreciated "Iron Giant") is not interested in mere wall-to-wall action, he personifies his superheroes with wit and intelligence in equal spades. Bird also clutters his narrative with plenty of visual gags, bright one-liners and action scenes of real exuberance at every turn (One action scene with floating bikes in a forest is as hair-raising as a similar one in "Return of the Jedi"). This is also the first animated film from Pixar to exclude talking animals or amphibians, focusing in squarely on the humans and it is an outstanding job. Thanks to the voices, these characters seem more alive than any Hollywood film with real humans. What is remarkable is that Bird also focuses on his heroes' vulnerability so that we can see ourselves in Bob's mundane job and his anger (though very few of us are capable of lifting a car over our heads) or Helen's hope that her family can adjust to suburbia without using their superpowers.

Kudos must also go to Bird's attention to the children and their own eccentricities. It is fun seeing Dash and Violet dash around violently in the dining room, or seeing how Violet always covers her face with her long black hair. She also hopes that she'll be noticed by a cute boy in school. It is also fun at seeing how eager Dash is to run at lightning speeds. There is one miraculously funny scene where Dash is shown on a videotape to have possibly placed a tack on his teacher's chair, but the kid is so fast that he disappears from his chair for less than a nanosecond.

At a breakneck speed of 120 minutes, "The Incredibles" is rollicking good fun from start to finish. It is consistently funny and comically charged with a high-wire intensity that is unusual to find in an animated film. It is as exciting and thrilling as any "Star Wars" or "Indiana Jones" flick, and far superior to any Marvel, D.C. or other type of comic-book movie I've seen. I know there is a "Fantastic Four" movie coming in 2005 but it won't come close to the grandeur, humanity, excitement or drollery of "The Incredibles."

Director needs some Clobberin' Time

FANTASTIC FOUR (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Originally reviewed in 2006)

When I saw the original "X-Men," I remember thinking that it was a full-blown comic-book come to life with effects galore and amazing, tactile super powers displayed with verve. "Fantastic Four" could've been another example of that - it has effects galore and plenty of amazing super powers displayed with everything money can buy. But it is solely an example of special-effects capabilities without human interest.

We have the introduction of the Fantastic Four team that includes brainy scientist, Dr. Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), who becomes Elastic Man; his on/off again love interest, Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), who becomes the Invisible Girl; Ben Grimm, Reed's best friend, who metamorphoses into a walking rock formation called the Thing; and finally Sue's brother, Johnny Storm (Chris Evans), who becomes the Human Torch. Their powers are inadvertently obtained by a cosmic ray explosion while on a mission at a space station. Also on board this mission is the arrogant, evil Dr. Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon), who has his DNA fundamentally changed as well, becoming the evil-as-evil-can-be Dr. Doom with an electrical charge all over his body.

Some of this is sort of fun. I enjoy seeing Johnny Boy using his powers when skiing (and making himself a jacuzzi atop a snowy peak) or trying to stop a heat-seeking missile; Reed Richards extending his fingers through a crevice or grabbing toilet paper from an adjoining room while sitting in the john; and the Thing lifting a fire truck that is hanging from a bridge. In terms of effects and wondrous new ways for Invisible Girl to develop a force shield or undressing so she can walk around invisible, this movie has ample to offer (and, yes, we get to hear the famous lines like "It's Clobberin' Time" or "Flame On!"). In terms of a credible story or three-dimensional characters, the movie stops short and focuses on one chaotic situation after another. We get shards of humanity about the Thing losing his fiancee because of his affinity for giant pebbles, and there is a substandard love story between Richards and Sue Storm. But Dr. Doom is so inherently evil that we never understand his motives - does he want to be the supervillain Dr. Doom because Richards has whisked away the woman Doom wanted to marry, namely Sue Storm? It seems Doom's biggest concern overall is that his interview on Larry King Live is abruptly cancelled. Hardly characteristic of a Marvel supervillain.

There is energy and bounce to the action scenes but "Fantastic Four" assumes that it is enough to see the fantastic super powers on display and nothing more. The similar "The Incredibles" already did it with more humanity and character interest a year earlier. After seeing Marvel Comics' cinematic adaptations like "Hulk" and the Spider-Man movies that set a whole new standard of character first, action second (isn't that why we like comic-books?), "Fantastic Four" falls very, very short. The Thing should've clobbered the director for lack of character development.

Shangri-La adventure deserves entombment

THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There is something peculiar about Brendan Fraser. In some movies, like the underrated "Blast From the Past," he is nothing short of stupendous and full of an inspired manic energy. In "The Mummy" series, he is so boring and insipid, words I've used far too many times, that it is a shock anyone considered casting him. Heck, Fraser looks the part of a 40's stock leading man with an oversized head and has got the goods to deliver a wickedly inspired performance, but he never cuts loose. Not once, not in the entire "Mummy" series. And this latest snoozefest, "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," has about as much to do with mummies as Indiana Jones has to do with cockroaches.

Fraser is the Rick O'Connell character, an Egyptologist who spends his days fishing, bored out of his numbskull because he so glories the days of shooting mummies and experiencing high adventure. And his wife, Evelyn (now played by a less spirited Maria Bello, replacing Rachel Weisz), is yearning for those days as well, especially after writing two bestselling books. And they live with a butler in a mansion right out of Bruce Wayne country. Yawn. But their son, Alex (Luke Ford), is spirited and has high adventure on his mind. The plot has to do with an accidentally revived 4,000 year-old Chinese emperor (Jet Li) who can command all the elements to start an avalanche but has a little problem fighting Yetis (a furry pack of giant Abonimable Snowmans that look about as real as the werewolf in "Van Helsing"). Rick and Evelyn decide to help their son fight the evil emperor and the entire Terracotta army, which takes them to Shangri-La. Also in accompaniment is an immortal Chinese woman and her mother, but the less said about them, the better.

I wish I enjoyed this movie but, alas, like the previous "Mummy" films, there is no sense of jeopardy, wit, adventure or anything on the level of awe. Fraser has seen these special-effected skeleton armies and mummified remains come to life so often, it seems he is yawning just looking at them (this is dully reflected in his dialogue to boot). Same with Maria Bello. They could care less and the urgency is lost. Jet Li is mostly animated in this film, which means anyone could've played this role, and Michelle Yeoh as a sorceress somehow maintains a straight face but her one shared moment with Li is short-shrifted for more CGI, less humanity. To make things worse, the movie is frantically cut from so many angles, particularly during the action scenes, that all sense of spatial continuity is lost (seriously, how many different angles does an explosion need to be seen from?) This "Mummy" film deserves entombment.

Another 2 hours with a parched Im-Ho-Tep

THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2001)

I have been vilified by people on the Internet and offline for my intense dislike of movies like the remake of "House on Haunted Hill" and the remake of "The Mummy," not to mention "The Matrix." None of these movies, in my mind, offered much in the way of story or plot or ideas, though "The Matrix" was far more ambitious than the other two. The problem is also the depths to which ILM computer designers will focus on the latest in state-of-the-art special effects sans story or plot or character definition. Casting decent actors like Rachel Weisz and Brendan Fraser in an overproduced mess like "The Mummy Returns" shows me that Hollywood has gone to sleep and raked in the big bucks. And the audiences continue to attend.

"The Mummy Returns" brings back Brendan Fraser as Rick, the resourceful Egyptologist who is now married to Evelyn (Rachel Weisz), the librarian from the first film. They also have a curious 8-year-old son (Freddie Boath), who is adept at using a slingshot. Also along for the ride is the dryly British brother-in-law Jonathan (John Hannah) who knows how to milk the appropriate quip when necessary. The story-hanging-on-a-thread involves some evil Egyptologists who want to bring back the dreaded Im-Ho-Tep (Arnold Vosoloo) to fight the dreaded Scorpion King (WWF star The Rock) at some sort of ancient pyramid. If I understood correctly (and I imagine I did not), the destruction of the Scorpion King is necessary for Im-Ho-Tep to rule the world and begin the second Armageddon, or something like that. By the end of the film, it turns out that the Scorpion King is also evil, but I could be wrong.

Stories like this typically make little sense but somehow they were cohesive in the Indiana Jones series. In fact, it is no surprise that like its predecessor, "The Mummy Returns" is a hodgepodge of horror cliches and the Indiana Jones flicks. Any semblance here of Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee from the old "Mummy" films is in-name only. Neither Vosoloo nor the Rock elicit much personality or villainy (I also noticed Vosoloo is photographed only from the chest up. This does not allow for much in the way of body language). It doesn't help that Rick's one line about seeing Im-Ho-Tep's resurrection results in the line, "Two years ago, this would have surprised me."

Fraser and Weisz seem to going through the motions (and have zilch in terms of chemistry). Only the 8-year-old son (nicely played by Freddie Boath) and the dry humor of John Hannah show some inkling of human beings existing in the world of this movie. Hannah has a classic line when he reacts to a sage's cliched line of "It is written..." by asking, "Where is it written?" The movie needed more of Hannah, or maybe he should have replaced the stoic Fraser.

"The Mummy Returns" is a template for special-effects galore but it is also a frighteningly inhuman movie where the main characters merely react to the roaring mummies and shoot them until they evaporate into thin air. The movie is a recap of the original but with even less emphasis on anyone who is not a dog-creature. By the end, we feel sympathy for one character, Im-Ho-Tep, as his reincarnated love refuses to save him. It is leftover evidence from the 90's when the audience feels more pity for the villains than they do for the heroes.

Parched Im-Ho-Tep will give you a headache

THE MUMMY (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 1999)

The trouble with remakes is that unless you haven't seen their forefathers, you'll think you are not witnessing cinematic artistry at its lowest. I cannot advise someone retouching a classic, understated horror classic like "The Mummy" (1932) which starred the incomparable Boris Karloff, or one of its best remakes with Christopher Lee in 1959. This overheated 90's version of the Mummy attempts to throw everything into the mix including the kitchen sink. As a result, it sacrifices its original storyline entirely, and what we have is a Mummy for the Indiana Jones mindset - one of the film's many unforgiving faults.

The film begins promisingly with the Egyptian prince, ImHoTep, punished for having an adulterous affair with the pharaoh's daughter. His tongue is cut, and he is consequently buried in bandages in a tomb full of scrappy, ugly scarabs (beetle-like bugs). We flash forward thousands of years later where ImHoTep's tomb is uncovered by a team of explorers seeking the Book of the Dead (If I recall correctly, there is more than one version in the catacombs!). One of the explorers is an ambitious Egyptologist (Rachel Weiz), who has trouble preventing bookcases from toppling at the Museum of Antiquities!

Once the Book of Dead is discovered and the forbidden sayings are uttered, all hell breaks loose as ImHoTep rises from the dead and slowly regenerates his human form. His objective is to bring back his beloved from the dead after commanding all the thunderstorms and sandstorms in his wrath - all in the name of love.

"The Mummy" tries to be a fusion of Indiana Jones and horror cliches, and attempts to tell a tragic love story as well. None work or blend easily. For one, casting Brendan Fraser as a bland, stock Indiana Jones hero who's barely shocked or scared by the Mummy is not wise - he does not have the integrity or fierceness of Harrison Ford. Rachel Weiz is too cute and shrilly as the female lead - she is more appropriate for a screwball comedy than a film of this type.

Arnold Vosoloo is the mean Egyptian mummy but his cold smile and angry eyes are overshadowed by the whirlwind special-effects - this mummy does not even wear bandages! He just evaporates and blows like a twister from one place to another. Where is the sense of menace and succinct body language of Boris Karloff? Whatever sense of loss emanated from ImHoTep's love affair is trampled by an exceeding number of special-effects and histrionic action sequences. But wait a doggone minute: Is this a horror film or an action picture?

"The Mummy" is a mindless blockbuster...but there are no delicious quips, no sense of adventure, and no peril. Some of it may be considered serviceable fun for young minds and there are some spellbinding sequences (the face-like formations on the sand are fabulous). But it's a joyless enterprise - more of a promo for extraordinary digital special-effects like "The Matrix" than a movie. All you'll receive from this parched Mummy is a headache.

Episode V: The best sequel ever made

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980)

An appreciation by Jerry Saravia

In 1980 when I first saw "The Empire Strikes Back," I knew the secret, the big revelation by Darth Vader. I am not sure if I read the comic adaptation first or what the heck happened, but I knew the most famous line in "Star Wars" history - the one that led creator George Lucas to backtrack and make those reviled prequels years later. And when I told my parents the secret prior to the screening (don't know what I was thinking but I was a wild-eyed nine-year-old), they did not believe it. So as I watched "Empire" and the scene came up, I was still rather astonished and it was Mark Hamill's screams as the young Jedi apprentice Luke Skywalker that made the scene gripping, emotional and somewhat provocative. Gripping, emotional, provocative - these are not words which usually describe a Star Wars film. "The Empire Strikes Back" is an astonishing marvel of a movie, a masterful, exciting and illuminating film that soars above any other "Star Wars" film and most other sci-fi fantasy flicks. 

So much has been written about "The Empire Strikes Back" that there is not a lot more to say. It trounces Lucas' original "Star Wars" film by at least 12 parsecs. There is more action, imagination to spare, a love story that brews, more expert villainy, more fascinating creatures, a few bounty hunters, and a lot more mysticism and philosophy regarding the Force. The action is superbly tight and focused in bright, colorful spurts, such as the giant AT-AT walkers that shoot at our Rebel forces, the Millennium Falcon swerving left and right to avoid collision with an asteroid field and the final lightsaber battle between Luke and Darth Vader.

Imagination is on overload in this film, from the discovery of a green little Muppet called Yoda (one of the finest performances in the film by Frank Oz) who tutors Luke into becoming a full-fledged Jedi, to Luke's possible if not eventual fate in a cave, to the Imperial Droids sent to the Hoth system (an ice planet) where the Rebels are hiding, to the carbon freezing chamber that leads to Han Solo's unlucky predicament, to a city in the Clouds where the engineering to keep it maintained is something only George Lucas would understand (or the series' introduction of the smoother-than-thou Lando Calrissian, played by Billy Dee Williams), to a massively ugly creature hidden in an asteroid or some rocky formation in space that may be a nod to "Jaws."

The love story that brews occurs between scoundrel Han Solo (Harrison Ford, in top form before he turned in a lazy performance in "Return of the Jedi") and feisty Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) who likes "nice men" - they both give the film an added touch of humanity. I'd guess that everyone will shed a tear for the final scene between Leia and Han - yep, you know he loves her in this universe. It is unshakable and it could draw a drift between Luke and Leia (of course, "Return of the Jedi" reveals their true relationship).
The villainy grows when we first see the sight of the Emperor, Lord Vader's higher command, who wants Luke annihilated. There are a few more admirals under Vader's command, some clumsier in their battle strategies than others. There is the cryptic Boba Fett (Jeremy Bulloch), a bounty hunter who wants to capture Solo and bring him back to Jabba the Hutt. Finally, what makes "Empire Strikes Back" rise above all others of its ilk is Yoda's lessons on how to focus, concentrate and not be driven by passion, anger. Never give up trying - do or do not, there is no try. I think there is more to take away from these powerful philosophies than almost anything else that you can find in the world of science-fiction fantasy.

"The Empire Strikes Back" does something that, at the time of the film's release, was considered a no-no. There is no ending - it is a cliffhanger for the eventual conclusion of "Return of the Jedi" (this has become more commonplace in franchises of late). The 1983 conclusion should've developed more of what "Empire" set in motion, instead of just Luke and Darth Vader's meeting of the lightsaber minds that yields two more startling revelations (if you have the seen film, you'll know what I mean). If only "Return" focused as much on Solo and Leia (maybe in "Star Wars: Episode VII") rather than making do with a thinly cutesy romance where they cavort with teddy bears. But, hey, that is a different movie. As for "Empire," I shouldn't leave out the wonderful return of Chewbacca (as much a yeller as ever, but how does Solo understand every grunt and yelp as an actual language?) or the droids C3P0 and R2D2, who proves a savior in the end. "The Empire Strikes Back" is more solemn, memorable, wittier and earth-shakingly entertaining and intense than any other chapter in the saga. It is not just a Star Wars chapter - it is one of the grandest, most thrilling, adventurous and romantic space operas ever made. 

Anything harder than Triple X?

8MM (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Director Joel Schumacher must rate as one of my personal guilty pleasures in the movies. He is the creator of such diverse works such as "Batman Forever," "St. Elmo's Fire," "Flatliners" and the execrable "Batman and Forever." Add the much maligned and thoroughly trashed "8mm" to the list - an often thrilling excursion into the unknown, in this case, the world of snuff films.

Nicolas Cage stars as Tom Welles, a private detective working in cahoots with the Missing Persons Bureau. One day, he is asked by a rich widow (Myra Carter) to investigate a possible snuff film found in her late husband's safe. If it is real, she wants to know, and to determine the identity of young half-naked girl  who was supposedly killed by a man in a mask, known as the Machine.

This investigation takes Tom to the porno underworld of L.A., shown to be grungy and filled with neon-green lights. He meets a porno shop clerk with rock music aspirations, Max (Joaquin Phoenix) who may have connections to this depraved world. And depraved it is, as Schumacher goes out of his way to show how snuff or porno films are morally wrong. It is a typically Hollywood-ish moralistic statement, as benign as anything that would have been made in late 60's or early 70's.

"8mm" has moments of tension and there is a general feeling of something unnerving waiting to happen. My problem with the film is that when Tom gets so sucked into this world that he thinks of killing those who are responsible for the girl's death (since the 8mm film is a snuff, after all), it quickly becomes as exploitative and cheap as the very subject that it is criticizing. Plus, Tom's descent into Schumacher's Hell is not as enveloping as one might imagine, and many of Tom's actions seem too over-the-top to truly believe. He becomes a killer after being seduced by the devil ("the devil changes you," quips Max at one point) but such a man would have fallen apart in far more dangerous ways, I think, than the screenplay by Andrew Kevin Walker ("Seven") allows.

The strength in "8mm" is Nicolas Cage's occasionally restrained performance and the first half of the film has an eerie, odorous feel to it, thanks to the decadently colored art direction and cinematography, complete with lots of dark green colors and silhouettes. Another plus is the comic relief supplied by Joaquin Phoenix; the incredibly Satanic porn director (Peter Stormare); and the toughness of James Gandolfini (star of HBO's "The Sopranos") as a low-rent producer. I also like the last shot of Machine, revealed to be anything less than monstrous.

"8mm" is serious stuff, and some of it is campy but it also contains an existential motif that is unfortunately eschewed for action cliches and happy endings. All I can say is that it took real guts for someone in Hollywood to associate themselves with the so-called urban legend of snuff films.

An exciting, humanistic Caped Crusader tale

BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM (1993)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I always appreciated the old Max Fleischer Superman cartoons from back in the day - they were fast, colorful and hugely entertaining. They also afforded the viewer (back in the 1940's) the opportunity to see Superman flying and performing daring feats against the enemies. Those cartoons, some which lasted no more than 10 minutes, didn't allow much time for character development. "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" has the Art Deco style of Max Fleischer and it is colorful and buckets of fun to watch, but it also affords the viewer the time to invest in its characters.

The Bruce Wayne character of this animated film looks a lot like Clark Kent, but that is only a minor flaw. Batman (with the menacing white eyes in his mask, voiced by Kevin Conroy) has been blamed for the deaths of a few goodfellas in Gotham City. It is not Batman who is killing them, it is some figure in a cape and a skull mask known as the Phantasm (calling itself the Grim Reaper who approaches his victims in an emerging fog bank), who is doing away with some 1940's-type gangsters. There is also Bruce's old flame to contend with, a certain Andrea Beaumont (voiced by Dana Delaney), who is back in Gotham for rather cryptic reasons. Andrea's father owed money to a few gangsters and his disappearance thickens the plot. Added to the Caped Crusader's personal demons (and a load of flashbacks to his origins and his once romantic relationship with Andrea) is the return of the mean Joker (a kooky voice and kookier laugh by Mark Hamill!) who knows Batman could never kill.

"Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" is beautifully, structurally animated in its sonic sweep of Gotham City and its various characters (the finale is a scorcher in terms of sound, picture and detail) and it is all anchored by sharp pacing and editing and even sharper dialogue (some of it drips with the irony of the best of 1940's noir). Plus, there is a welcome insight into the dichotomy of Bruce Wayne and Batman. The film makes this duality come alive in ways that Tim Burton's own Batman films or the sequels that followed never quite mustered. You actually care about both Bruce (who hopes to eradicate his crime-fighting skills) and the Dark Knight himself and that makes this 76-minute film sing. "Batman" also works as a love story between Bruce and Andrea, and it ends with a slight note of despair. Still, no worries, kids will love this film as well as adults. Aside from Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight interpretations, "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" is a strong contender for one of the best Batman flicks ever. 

Life Without this Movie

LIFE WITHOUT DICK (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Life Without this Movie, an apropos title. This stench known as "Life Without Dick" is without a doubt the most unfunny, least comical and the least of all comedies or black comedies of all time. Let me clarify further: I have no idea what was attempted here, but it also fails at being about nothing.

Sarah Jessica Parker is Colleen Gibson, who in the opening scene kills her allegedly cheating boyfriend named Dick (Johnny Knoxville) by shooting him in their own house. Seems like Dick, a private dick that is, was going away somewhere with his three pieces of luggage. Harry Connick freaking Junior plays an alleged hitman working for his Irish boss with a Scottish accent, Jared O'Reilly (played rather witlessly yet mildly entertainingly by Craig Ferguson). Alleged meaning Connick has never done a hit. His first hit is supposed to be Colleen's private dick yet, lo and behold, he is already dead thanks to snappy shooter Colleen. Oooh, the irony of it all. And no Parker Brothers board game will be awarded to anyone who can't guess what Sarah Jess ends up doing.

This movie went straight to DVD in 2002, and no wonder because it is not exactly an undiscovered gem. "Life Without Dick" is meant to be a crossbreed of black comedy in the Tarantino vein crossed with a cutesy, overlit romantic comedy. That it fails as both is no surprise - the surprise is that writer-director Bix Skahill can't elicit much in the way of laughs or anything mildly blackly comical. And to top it all off, Connick Freaking Junior is not an actor - a hell of a singer, possibly better than Bing Crosby, but actor, no! Considering Connick sings in this movie, it made me wish he only played a singer in a cameo and nothing more (Crosby by all accounts was a far superior actor than Connick). Sarah Jessica Parker gives one a migraine after a while with her shrill delivery of lines like, "I want to do hits for youuuuuu!" This actress can be anything but dull but in this movie...one can snooze at her alleged histrionic performance.

Alleged hit man, alleged acting, alleged writing, alleged comedy. Basically, "Life Without Dick" is an alleged movie.

Web-Crawler slinging alien goo

SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Spider-Man 3" is the least of the series and possibly the strangest entry in the web-slinging saga by far. Though it has the all the hallmarks of the series, including the web-slinger swinging around the city, more dramatic relationships and high-octane action scenes, there is a fundamental creepiness that sets in. "Spider-Man 3" is not as high-spirited or as comical as the other films - a darkness is immersed in this sequel that makes it less of a rehash and more of an adult fairy-tale. I consider that a plus, but it does make for diminishing returns the third time around.

Fairy-tale suits the Spider-Man series because it is after all a growing love affair between hapless Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and ambitious, talented actress Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) in a world populated by freaks with strange powers (this film is probably the closest Raimi has come to making a Tim Burton movie minus the grotesqueries). Peter is riding high on the popularity of his alter-ego, the masked crime-fighting web slinger, Spider-Man, and is scoring high grades in college. Mary Jane is in a Broadway musical singing Irving Berlin's "They Say It's Wonderful." Everything seems great until we learn that Mary Jane is fired after getting negative reviews and resorts to being a singing waitress! Peter has to contend with his best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), who bears a vehement grudge on Peter after learning that Pete is Spider-Man and killed Harry's father. There is also an ambitious photographer, Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who wants a salaried position at the Daily Bugle with his photos of Spider-Man (none more amazing than what Peter could take). There's also an escaped convict (Thomas Haden Church) who runs into a particle accelerator and turns into Sandman, a shape-shifting sand monster; alien goo from outer space that finds itself attached to Spidey's suit and turns Brock into some demonic villain with monstrous fangs called Venom; Peter's lab partner, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), who is saved in a crane accident by Spidey, and my spidey-sense is tingling and telling me the plot is on overload for a 2 hour and 19 minute film.

Back to the creepy factor. Sam Raimi and Ivan Raimi have concocted a script that veers into something more unseemly than what you might find in a Spider-Man comic, almost as I said earlier into a dark fairy- tale land. The film nudges us with some sense of dread, something forbidden. The alien goo, or symbiote, is a clue in that it doesn't allow for Peter Parker to flower as an adult - it instead brings on an aggressiveness, a necessity to kill his enemies without provocation and it gives him a black Spidey suit. It also makes Peter more of a sexual creature, a ladies' man with a pseudo-Goth look (the joke is that it draws more disapproving looks from female onlookers than anything else). But it also proves to make him distant from Mary Jane, as if a commitment to marriage suddenly eludes him. Hard to say if Peter Parker ever had a romp in the hay with Mary Jane between the end of Part 2 and the beginning of Part 3, but one gets the impression he might be a virginal web-slinger, drawing more attention to his police scanner and catching the bad guys than redhead Mary Jane's needs and wants. This makes for a more intellectual and implied connection between Mary Jane and Peter, and that is disappointing because they had something more solid and emotional in the second film. Nevertheless, there is a connection and it is imbued with a little more maturity - Peter has no doubts about their relationship but Mary Jane does, especially after Spidey shares his famous MJ kiss with Gwen Stacy!

Part of the problem is the introduction of Gwen Stacy - she is saved by Spidey and clearly is attracted to him and Peter! She is also Eddie Brock's girlfriend, but these two characters could've used more nourishment. Bryce Dallas Howard is such a flirt with Peter that you wish her character was given more to do in providing some added tension between Peter and Mary Jane (her character meant a lot to Peter in the comics, considering her demise). Instead we get saddled with Sandman's own past history with Peter's Uncle Ben (in yet another reprise by Cliff Robertson) and we learn a terrible secret that seems vaguely contrived. The original running time of this film was over two and a half hours and that was probably more fitting for all the plotlines and characters on display here.

Of the three villains, the only one that really jumps at you is James Franco's New Goblin character. He is fierce and unrelenting and he has a history with Mary Jane and Peter Parker. That makes for an emotional crescendo in the finale that is devastating and sincere (his sly wink at Peter at one point is eerie). This character clearly supersedes Thomas Haden Church, who doesn't really get a chance to do much with his character (CGI does it all) but Church's last scene is stunning and pinpoints a deeper theme in this film - all villains in the Spidey universe are flawed and acknowledge their mistakes yet can't help themselves. They made a choice, as does Spider-Man and everyone else in these movies, and they are going to have to live with it.

Deep, melancholic stuff in this "Spider-Man 3." A good picture overall, despite it being overstuffed, and possibly better than the critics claimed. It's not as surprisingly inventive as the original film or as colorful as the second film, but it is richly layered and you can't say Raimi didn't give it his best shot. It is more of an adult fairy-tale crossed with comic-book theatrics, romantic yearnings and guilt-ridden characters.