Vulgar yet still likable wedding bells

AMERICAN WEDDING (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 
I suppose I should have hated "American Wedding" but I couldn't, no matter how hard I tried. Actually, I didn't try because I still believe in the concept of vulgar comedies created to offend the conservatives, and to make the rest of us laugh. Sometimes, they really do manage to offend, as in 1971's sharply
hilarious black comedy "Harold and Maude" or John Waters' "Pink Flamingos." Sometimes they fail because the vulgarity is all there is, as in "Van Wilder," the most profanely unfunny gross comedy ever made. But the "American Pie" series falls somewhere in the middle - they may be gross but their humor has some air of wit and the characters are likable. "American Wedding" ups the ante on the gross-out meter but, again, the characters are still appealing and fun to watch and listen to.

The movie begins with Jim (Jason Biggs) about to propose to Michelle (Alison Hannigan) at a restaurant when he realizes he forgot the wedding ring! Jim contacts his father (Eugene Levy) to bring the ring. But then Michelle gets under the table and, well, if you have seen the other movies, you pretty much know what to expect. The plot has Jim and Michelle planning their wedding while the loutish, boorish Stifler (Seann William Scott) plans a bachelor party with strippers posing as a Swiss maid and a police officer. There is also Michelle's younger, sweet sister Cadence (January Jones), who takes a liking to Stifler, if only because he tries to pass himself off as an intellectual. There is also a truly funny dance contest at a gay bar with Stifler dancing his way around the stage to different songs including the Eurythmics. We also have Jim's grandmother involved in an unfunny predicament with Stifler. The jokes about the dogs abound with bad taste, though they are diverting and will make you wince. Jim's pubic hair scenario may make you wince a lot more, but again, what did you expect in this age of trying to top the Farrelly Brothers gross-out standards?

What there is to enjoy may not be much for the average intellectual, but it is passable for a light evening of entertainment. After it was over, I chuckled a few times, occasionally laughed out loud and turned away with only mild amusement a few dozen times. I appreciate the zany, energetic shenanigans of Seann William Scott's Stifler ("I am the Stiffmeister.") more than Jason Biggs's glum Jim, who is given less to do than in the other films. Overall, the first two "American Pie" movies were funnier and more spirited (and I do miss the absentees: Tara Reid, Chris Klein and Mena Sevauri). Still, if there is another sequel, the filmmakers would be criminally insane not to have Stifler as the main attraction.

Strictly situational

 AMERICAN PIE 2 (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It is tough to review a movie like "American Pie 2" because either one appreciates a teenage sex comedy or they don't. "American Pie" was a decent entertainment that went on too long, but it did have some big laughs and a genial tone that was appealing enough. But make no mistake: "American Pie" aimed for one general theme - high-school teenagers today are only interested in sex, nothing else. "American Pie 2" continues the same theme with little or no ingenuity and, at least, it is still genial and contains some big laughs.

Goofy, geeky Jim (Jason Biggs) is back, now having gone through a whole year at college. He is still preoccupied with sex and is caught doing the nasty by his parents and his girlfriend's parents! Jim goes back home for the summer, but is then instantly taken to a lake house in Michigan with his buddies. They need a job and find one painting a house where two supposed lesbians live! So there are
lots of scatological jokes involving sex, homophobia, homosexuality, phone sex, super glue, and even CB radio! The latter joke seems strange considering we live in the era of the Internet (CB is referred to as the "prehistoric Internet" in the thrilling "Joyride"), thus the earlier film's joke of broadcasting Jim's
embarrassing rendezvous with the Russian girl, Nadia (Shannon Elizabeth), on the Internet was far funnier.

And that is about it. "American Pie 2" is a situational comedy in the strictest sense, depending entirely on creative sexual adventures to further the movie along. There is no plot and really no story - this is a roundabout sexual comedy all the way. The problem is that after a while, the situations and the jokes can get old when the filmmakers have nothing else to depend on. A sticky predicament involving Jim gets some big laughs. I also like the extended scene where the two lesbian chicks confront Jim and two of his buddies, and convince them to undress and kiss. There is a nice bit involving Jim's prom date, Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and how he asks her to prepare him for the inevitable meeting with his "Internet" love, Nadia. I also enjoyed the brief scenes with Tara Reid and Mena Sevauri, both of whom are too talented for this kind of material. They are so watchable that I wish they were given more screen time.

The characters are fresh and likable. Some of the situations are fun. The dialogue is sometimes clever. I can't feel but mystified, though, that "American Pie 2" exists for no reason other than to cash in on the original and provide more of the same. We are led to believe that after high school, college only
offers these kids the same lusty thoughts of sexual promiscuity. When do they ever grow up?

Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future

 1984 (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

George Orwell is an author who understood all too well how totalitarian regimes work. His famous novel "1984" did not see the future as much as it saw how the 1940's would be seen as the past and the future. When his novel was published in 1949, it was prescient to those who knew all too well about the extinguished Nazi regime yet no one could've anticipated how much of the novel was beyond sardonic and became spookily real. Naturally there was also Stalin's Russia and there is no doubt that the images he conjured in our collective imagination have become eerily prescient in 2022 and, ultimately, ever since the book was published. Director Michael Radford's disturbing, thought-provoking version of Orwell's book is the last we might ever see of this book and that is fine by me. It may be the only time we see how that world visually was so clinically unhealthy - such a grayish, crumbling world can only allow conformity.

John Hurt is the frail-looking Winston Smith who works for the Ministry of Truth, a dingy-looking building where he effectively rewrites history in newspaper articles to befit the current climate of war taking place. It is what is referred to as Newspeak, rebranding Oldspeak by deleting and/or rephrasing headlines and replacing pictures of the current Unpersons with new persons. Any other discarded notes are destroyed by throwing them through ducts that lead to a furnace. Interestingly, we get the sole shot in the whole movie where we see Winston at his desk from the point-of-view of Big Brother - the surveillance is omnipresent as every screen has a still image of Big Brother. In this fictional land of a bombed-out, oppressive place known as Oceania, the workers at the Ministry of Truth all wear faded blue uniforms. They all live in their own eroded flats that look torn apart, and they all drink the same Victory gin that makes one belch and smoke the same Victory cigarettes. The lift at the flats barely ever works so everyone is forced to use the stairs. All Oceania residents are practically automatons in this totalitarian society as they attend rallies with giant dual screens of Party members showing death and destruction in war with Eurasia and East Asia. They are all malleable and all scream in unison at the enemies (one is the opposition leader of the Brotherhood known as Emmanuel Goldstein) and then cross their arms singing the regime's anthem (one can't escape thinking this hailing of their leader as an obvious echo of the Nazi salute). 

Winston is not a believer in the Party or the Outer Party he's part of - he buys a diary book and writes his criticisms in a far corner of his room so as not to be seen by the Big Brother monitor. He only pretends to be a Party supporter and is too much of an intellectual, which would make him guilty of Thoughtcrime. He eyes a seeming revolutionary or presumed spy of the Outer Party, Julia (a startling performance by Suzanna Hamilton), and they decide to have a love affair despite the regime's restrictions on sex and just about everything having to do with being human. 

Not unlike Orwell's dystopian novel, "1984" is a tough film to absorb and it is so relentlessly (and purposely) bleak that it may be even tougher to sit still for it. I've seen it now three times and this last time was a bit of an ordeal, mostly due to witnessing Winston's torture by the cruel O'Brien (2+2=5 became numbers that petrified me through its constant repetition and questioning by O'Brien). Of course, it is meant to be an ordeal because most of the film (and the book) revolves around being inside Winston's mind. In that fragile spirit of a person seeking individuality and a return to humanism, John Hurt is the perfect Winston Smith. Every line of dialogue spoken and every piece of narration is given maximum gravity in ways only John Hurt could have only mustered. I also love Suzanna Hamilton's work here as a brave Julia, often wearing a scarlet sash as in the book, who is not ready to give up the fight. Richard Burton, in his last role, is positively chilling as O'Brien, an Inner Party member who implements torturing those who violate the laws and criticize the regime. One torturous device in room 101 has to do with rats in a cage and I will leave it at that. 

The underlying theme is you cannot have sex or have an orgasm or have any love for anything or anyone other than Big Brother and the totalitarian regime. The last line of "1984," and expressed without dialogue in the book, is "I love you" uttered without a hint of irony by Winston. This is not directed to Julia or anyone other than Big Brother. Winston's brainwashed and accepting of anything Big Brother says or does. That's love in a cruel, odd way.

I am the shadows

 THE BATMAN (2022)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Batman is the most unusual hero we have ever had in the comic-book world. I never quite connected to the Bruce Wayne wealthy playboy alter-ego in general, especially the Frank Miller graphic novels. Christopher Nolan's films did a fantastic job of developing their dual nature and it helped that Christian Bale played the Caped Crusader and the charms of the rich kid to the hilt. Since Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, we have had Ben Affleck who was impressive enough to me in the "Batman v. Superman" film (one which many DC comic fans find deplorable). But what else is there to say about Batman at this point? It has only been 10 years since "The Dark Knight Rises" and, quite frankly, I can't imagine anything else that could be derived from the character after all the grit and real-world terrorist allusions of those terrific Nolan films. Matt Reeves has practically done the impossible. He has come on board as writer and director of "The Batman" and has created a stark, riveting new chapter in this nocturnal hero. I am not sure there are too many new shadings to the Batman/Bruce Wayne character but this movie is sleek, compulsively watchable, smashing entertainment. 

Robert Pattinson is the emo version of Bruce Wayne, a somewhat indifferent, tortured rich kid who is spending a lot of time as the Batman, lurking in the shadows as he pounces on gangs and thieves in the grimiest sections of the city. We hear Bruce's narration in a noir style narration as he is trying to find his footing in a corrupt Gotham City. How corrupt? Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), the resident crime boss, owns the police and virtually the entire city. Batman's plan is to become vengeance and tear apart Gotham and its criminal elements. Perhaps Batman never realized how deeply corrupt the city has always been, including revelations about his supposed Boy Scout of a father who ran for Mayor of Gotham and was gunned down. In short, the history of Gotham City is submerged in lies.

Meanwhile, there is Catwoman (Zoe Kravitz, who doesn't summon the cat's growl) aka Selina Kyle who works at Falcone's exclusive nightclub as a waitress. Selina has also has vengeance on her mind when her lover is killed and she is more than ready to fight dirty and kill, dressed in a killer leather outfit and riding in a motorcycle like a fierce avenger. For the first time in eons, maybe ever, this Catwoman is a real match for Batman, exuding a fearlessness and pathos we have not seen in a while - you feel for Selina and her own familial past also creeps up on her just like Bruce Wayne's. 

In this Gotham City, made to look like New York City except dirtier, more subterranean with consistent rainy weather, there is little respite from the freaks lurking in the shadows committing crimes, both high and low. The one villain who looks more freakish than the others is Oswald Cobblepot aka the Penguin (played by an unrecognizable Colin Farrell, who would've been at home in 1990's "Dick Tracy") yet he is not resolutely evil, just partnering with evil men and he's got a snaky charm about him. It is the fearsome, scary Riddler (played with lethally venomous zeal by Paul Dano), dressed in a green hazmat-looking suit with glasses covering his eyes, who is the film's chief villain - a terrorist who kills those who committed sins in the city of Gotham, specifically politicians who are of course in Falcone's deep pockets. The Riddler always leave a calling card, a note for the Batman in an envelope with riddles.

Matt Reeves' humanistic and deeply resonant "The Batman" is somehow a darker vision than Christopher Nolan's trilogy yet also more optimistic. We get the sense that the Batman is looking to make Gotham great again, to make it a city brimming with some social justice (Kravitz's Catwoman echoes this when she mentions those "white privileged assholes.") Although Robert Pattison's far too brooding Bruce Wayne is not as cunning as his Batman, I still felt empathy for the guy and I was hoping he would succeed. And when you hear that Batmobile roaring its engine to fight the complex evils of Gotham and its criminals, I was more than willing to hang on for this darkly chilling, sonorous ride of a movie.    

Robots are taking over

 I, ROBOT (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Since 1982's cult classic "Blade Runner," the notion dispelled was that robots were more human than humans. Along with 2001's underrated Steven Spielberg film, "A.I.," the other notion was that robots want to become human. "I, Robot" takes the idea even further - robots want to feel human emotions and consider themselves human because their human creators intended it that way.

Set in Chicago, thirty years from now, Will Smith plays Detective Spooner, a brash, motor-mouthed cop who despises robots. You see, in this near-future, robots handle duties and jobs that most humans would have (is this an indication of the migrating U.S. jobs to Mexico, China, etc.?) These robots (who look like walking iPods and have the metallic sheen of iMacs) deliver Federal Express packages, handle household duties, protect humans from harm, throw trash into garbage trucks, and so on. There are the famous Isaac Asimov Laws of Robotics (suggested, not based, on Asimov's book of the same name),

which include that robots protect and never kill humans. As Spooner says, "All rules are made to be broken." The creator of U.S. Robotics, Dr. Landing (James Cromwell), apparently committed suicide, but Spooner knows better. He feels a robot had killed Landing and is now on the run. Spooner receives help from Dr. Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan), an employee of U.S. Robotics whose job is to

make these robots look as human as possible. Lo and behold, somebody might have messed with the robots' circuits. The robot fugitive on the run, known as Sonny, feels anger and can mimic human expressions. If he feels anger, he might use it to kill. Or he may just pound his fists on the table.

What "I, Robot" has is a sleek, unique look, and director Alex Proyas ("Dark City") eschews the subterranean look of his earlier pictures for a glossy facade, mainly due to shots of metallic surfaces that emanate a glow from reflective lights. Most scenes are shot in daylight hours, and the city of

Chicago looks more densely populated with skyscrapers, including the ultra-modernist U.S. Robotics building that seems to have an upwards slope. Photographically speaking, the overall effect is of a metallic glow that can be gleaned from every frame. Even Sonny, often shown in profile, seems to be

subtly glowing (understandable when there are Biblical allusions throughout the film) and he seems more real than anyone in the entire film.

As for story and in-depth characters, "I, Robot" falls somewhat short. One too many holes exist in the plot, especially when dealing with the robots and their new and improved counterparts. For instance, if robots are performing menial jobs (instead of illegal aliens or legal workers), what do the humans do for work? We even see one robot bartending! The only available jobs are for robot scientists? Apparently, the city is full of humans, so what the heck do they do for a living?

As for the human characters, we have Will Smith's Spooner who may as well have sprung from both "Bad Boys" and "Men in Black" - he has his share of one-liners, even to a cat! He is mostly an angry man and detests robots (at least his explanation of why he hates them is rather touching) yet loves

listening to Stevie Wonder's "Superstition." Moynahan's good doctor seems more concerned with the future of robots than humans - though intentional to be sure, we never glean much insight from her. And the most underutilized character is Dr. Landing, always shown as a computer image, whose actions are

never clear and quite suspect.

Proyas invested an existential edge in "Dark City," a sort of retro-1940's noir where everyone is at the service of evil aliens in trenchcoats. This time, the familiarity of city life seems corrupted, and humans are hardly the threat of the future anymore. Since Kubrick's "2001," the overriding theme has been that

anything computerized or electronic is not to be trusted. Robots are the threat and they want to take over. The humans are the supporting characters.

"I, Robot" is entertaining and slight, shunning many of the late Asimov's moral themes for high-powered action scenes and sporadic one-liners. Though some useful ideas slip through this typical Hollywood summer blockbuster, one expects Alex Proyas to dig much deeper.

Doctor, can you spare a cure for a vampire?

 HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS (1970)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

An overwrought Gothic soap opera defines Barnabas Collins and the daytime hit TV show "Dark Shadows." Director Dan Curtis took his black-and-white "Young and the Restless"-with-fangs idea and shot it in darkly lit color with very minor bloody scenes. The result is 1970's "House of Dark Shadows" which for once is not a quickie cash-in attempt to make a feature film out of a TV show and has a reasonable fright factor with its foggy, day-for-night scenes outside Collinswood manor and a suitable eerie quality thanks to actor Jonathan Frid as the classy, courtly vampire, Barnabas. Still, his gentlemanly demeanor does not diminish his feeding time. 

The story is a basic reprise of the original concept of the show. Willie (John Karlen), a handyman from the Collins family, decides to break in to the Collins mausoleum and break the chains of a coffin only to reawaken the 200-year-old Barnabas (Willie was apparently looking for precious Collins jewels). Now Willie sort of becomes Barnabas' own Renfield, serving the master at his every whim. Later on, Barnabas pretends to be a cousin of the Collins family as he formally introduces himself to them, though one astute Professor Stokes (Thayer David, the Van Helsing type) senses something is afoot. Meanwhile a couple of women are bitten and become vampires, while a fresh-faced governess named Maggie Evans (Kathryn Leigh Scott) catches Barnabas' eye. She reminds him of his 18th century fiancée, Josette du Pres, and he naturally hopes to be reacquainted. It may take a cure to Barnabas' vampirism to make a marriage and the ability to walk around in daylight hours. Call it a contrivance or pure luck, to some degree, that a certain Dr. Julia Hoffman (Grayson Hall) has discovered how to isolate his vampire cell and weaken it. How is this possible and why only one cell? The questions I thought of when it came to curing vampirism nearly overwhelmed my viewing experience. 

Most of "House of Dark Shadows" is rudimentary vampire lore straight out of the Dracula playbook with only the vampire cure remaining the most original idea. Many scenes end far too abruptly, as if moments of shock and awe as in an emotional response to a vampire attack or the ghostly vision of a female vampire are cut off haphazardly. Still, the film is thickly layered with Gothic Collinswoodsy atmosphere and the sight of Barnabas Collins holds the movie together (the delay of his appearance at the beginning was smart and creepy). Director Dan Curtis, a veteran of TV and film horror (his "Trilogy of Terror" is one of the best TV horror films ever made), shows he can engineer horror and make it somewhat palatable, if still all-too-familiar. Frid's Barnabas remains the milestone it was and still is. 

When King Richard Smacked M.C. Gusto - Oscars unforgivable historic moment

 WHEN KING RICHARD SMACKED M.C. GUSTO...

By Jerry Saravia

I have not commented on the live Oscars telecast in years, partly because I normally don't watch them all the way through. Another reason is because I normally do not see all the nominated films. And yet another is because politics and wokeness (a term I loathed) or maybe just wokeness plays a part in who wins. This wasn't always the case considering spectacularly great films like "Unforgiven" and "The Silence of the Lambs" won and the latter was not what we could call today "woke." Of all the Oscar telecasts I have seen in 45 plus years, this 2022 Oscars telecast has to got to be the most insane and the most unforgiving. 

As you all know by now, comedian Chris Rock was on stage presenting the Best Documentary Award and he quickly made a joke that Will Smith's wife Jada Pinkett Smith looks primed to appear in "G.I. Jane 2." Jada has alopecia, a hair loss condition that leaves you permanently bald. She looked remarkable with her green dress regardless of having hair or not. This was a simple joke and we saw one camera angle where Will Smith was smiling as the quip was delivered with Jada rolling her eyes. Within half a second, Will Smith got up from his chair, approached the front stage and smacked Chris Rock, and what appeared to be a simulation or a staged event leading to maybe a punchline was clearly not. The moment was shrouded in complete silence when Will Smith was bleeped for telling Chris Rock to keep his mouth shut when it comes to joking about his wife. Chris Rock did not appear to be anything but shocked and somehow continued with the evening - a true professional, but to what end? What if Will Smith punched him hard enough to knock out Chris Rock? It could have happened and I suppose nobody considered it. Should we applaud Will Smith for showing restraint by not knocking Chris out or throwing a chair on stage? Do we reward Will Smith for not taking his quick temper too far? 

These are all valid questions and it is all I thought about while watching the Oscars. Will Smith's Best Actor win for "King Richard" could have been a career highlight to savor (there are still very few black actors that have won the coveted Best Actor Oscar in what is coming to close to a century since the first telecast) but his speech was submerged in tension after that incident and not applaud worthy as he tried to make amends yet with no apparent apology to Chris Rock. In fact, it was impossible to enjoy the Oscars after that (and it finished at 11:30 pm which is decent timing for once). The whole evening soured after this incident. Unforgiving.

I came into the live telecast of the Oscars rather late because I had forgotten they were even airing. I caught the terrific James Bond 60th anniversary montage and decided to keep watching. I was hoping for "Licorice Pizza" to win because it is one of the finest films about adolescence I have ever seen (have not seen "Coda" yet and "Power of the Dog" was a good but not a great film). When I heard Chris Rock was getting ready to present an Oscar, I got nervous as I always do when he comes on because he is honest and doesn't shy away from saying provocative things (check out his SNL hosting gigs in the past - you can hear the audience nervously laughing). Who could have expected this debacle? Not me except I heard no nervous laughter during it.  

This was the first time there was an actual assault at the Oscars though there were a couple of times in Oscars past history where an assault was looming or implied. According to Sacheen Littlefeather, an Apache woman who was told by Marlon Brando to not accept his Oscar on stage for his role in "The Godfather," she was about to be physically assaulted by tough guy John Wayne for her comments about the exploitative treatment of American Indians in Hollywood movies. Naturally, this physical assault did not occur but it gives one pause to think what might have happened had six security guards not restrained John Wayne. 

This other example is a cheat because it did not happen at the Oscars but it is still a good example of a threat made against someone else, again with no actual physical assault. Clint Eastwood had previously threatened rabble rouser documentary filmmaker Michael Moore's life during the National Board of Review Awards dinner where "Million Dollar Baby" was receiving acclaim. Eastwood spoke from the stage and said the following: "Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common. We both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression. But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera, I'll kill you." Moore thought Clint was joking but then the legend said yet again, "I mean it. I'll shoot you." The audience got quiet real fast, not unlike the Will Smith shouting-obscenities-moment at Chris Rock. Moore wrote about the incident and said: "I tried to keep that fake smile on my face so as to appear as if he hadn't 'gotten' to me. But he had. I then mumbled to those sitting at my table. 'I think Dirty Harry just said, "Make my day, punk.''' Incidentally, at the Oscars back in 2003, someone backstage was furious at Michael Moore's anti-war acceptance speech after receiving the gold statue for "Bowling for Columbine." Moore said about the evening after the curtains went down: "All of a sudden stagehands were coming at me. Security quickly surrounded me to protect me. One stagehand broke through and went right up in my ear and shouted, 'Asshole!'" 

Twitter went aflutter with the John Wayne business, some bringing it up as a notorious example while defending Will Smith. Except the Wayne incident never materialized into a physical assault. Will Smith slapping Chris Rock was real and violent, how could it not be seen as a physical attack? What will comedians do in the future when they appear at the Oscars? Will have they have two security guards for every comedian just in case the offended person rises from their chair? "In this business, you gotta be able to have people disrespecting you and you gotta smile and you gotta pretend like that‘s OK," said Will Smith during his Best Actor Oscar acceptance speech. That is the nature of Hollywood and everyone else that attends a stand-up comedy show or a glitzy awards show where a provocative comedian may pop up. Will Smith should have taken heed of his own advice.