Sheen on Me

CHARLIE SHEEN: A WARLOCK AMONG MANY

By Jerry Saravia

We have seen celebrities in career meltdowns but never have I witnessed a mental breakdown that has made an actor a superstar of the first order. Britney Spears, Robert Downey, Jr., to name a couple, had fallen precipitously in the media's eyes only to be slowly careened back into some measure of glory (this may not happen for Mel Gibson, who may have finally exhausted any fans he once had). Charlie Sheen has been a bad boy, a cocaine-addled troublemaker since his 20's when he emerged as the movie star of films like "Platoon" and "Wall Street." But after making such great films, I can't say Sheen had exactly matched the talent he so eloquently displayed in those Oliver Stone films. I enjoyed his spoofy "Hot Shots!" pictures, "Major League" and others but too few matched Sheen's dramatic range. The less said about "Young Guns, "The Rookie" and the execrable "Navy SEALS," the better. Despite his talent, it seems he has become the media's first rock-and-roller/ubersuper party-boy who has never been in a rock band, and has received applause for his arrogance and honesty in equal doses, including from Piers Morgan who interviewed Charlie on his show.

Now let's backtrack a bit. In 2003, Charlie Sheen showed his quicksilver charm and bad-boy behavior by basically mocking it and making it somewhat safe for the PG-13 crowd as the hedonistic jingle writer Charlie Harper with the occasionally uproarious "Two and a Half Men," CBS's most popular sitcom. Not only did it gain the highest ratings but Charlie was also the highest paid sitcom actor on television, no small feat by any stretch of the imagination. I like the show, which had grown progressively raunchier and far more sexualized than it was at conception (!), but I could only take so much of it after awhile. The show is like a drug but its near-sleaziness can be offputting when it isn't funny. Still, Sheen and Jon Cryer (playing Charlie's sexually frustrated brother), Angus T. Jones (Charlie's slightly dim nephew), Holland Taylor (Charlie's honest mother, to say the least) and Conchata Ferrell (Charlie's witty housekeeper) made the show what it was. Or so we thought.

Charlie Sheen is integral to the success of the show, but so is the rest of the cast yet he seems to think that he is the star and should be treated accordingly. Sheen was abruptly, or so we think, told that the show had been cancelled until presumably September. That meant that everyone was out of work until then, including Charlie Sheen (the crew has been paid by CBS for the four months they will not be filming). However, Sheen railed hard against the CBS bosses by mocking the show's creator, Chuck Lorre, and claiming that he, not Chuck Lorre, made "gold out of a tin can." Then Sheen scheduled a television interview where we saw his home, his two "goddesses," his children, and he made statements that have already become catchphrases, namely "winning," "bring it," "warlock" and, my favorite, "rock star from Mars." This and numerous interviews he has given where he seemingly rambles incoherently are definite signs of a career meltdown, or are they? In fact, Sheen proved he was drug-free by submitting to drug tests, including one for Radar Online, and he also proved he was coherence-free (or his comments could be the result of a manic episode, possibly bipolar, but I am not Dr. Drew so don't ask me).

I've nothing against Charlie Sheen's indulgences that include endless partying and sexual escapades (rock stars, to be fair, have partied harder than Sheen and, for lack of a better example, Keith Richards is still miraculously living). Still, Sheen's cocaine binges and two girlfriends (one is a porn star and the other, a former nanny) may have affected any chances he had in regaining custody of his two youngest kids, both of whom were recently taken away from him by his ex-wife Brooke Mueller. His ranting and raving has also affected the CBS sitcom that made him an A-lister to the point that CBS decided to pull the plug due to Sheen's arrogant comments and askew behavior and lifestyle (though there is no morality clause for the latter). With most of the nonsense he has been spewing lately, Sheen never once mentioned the actors that round out the cast in his show. Where is all the love for Jon Cryer, Angus T. Jones, Melanie Lynskey or Conchata? My feeling is that Sheen probably thinks the show can't have a future without him. CBS could easily replace Sheen, but with John Stamos? No, thanks. It can't be "Two and a Half Men" without Charlie, can it? Heck, it can't be the same show without Jon Cryer either. At least, Charlie didn't shoot anybody in the arm this time out, unlike his former girlfriend Kelly Preston back in 1990.

I am hoping Charlie Sheen returns to the show that put him in the major television leagues but it is hard to say what the future holds for him (he is already mulling over other offers, though "Major League 4" may not be one of them). Sheen's most fervent followers (an incredible 2 million-plus in Sheen's twitter account, as of this writing) are excusing the party boy's ways and it seems that Sheen's interviews have already bounced him back and made him more popular than ever (you know you are too popular when you eclipse world news and Lindsay Lohan!)  But you can't be the life of the party and "radical" forever. Soon, his most ardent followers and fans will get tired and search for someone else to grab a hold of. Maybe his supporters (and enablers) may embrace him again if he can stay reasonably clean and sober for more than six months, at least to the point that it doesn't affect his life. Just ask Robert Downey, Jr.  

NOTE: Charlie Sheen was fired from "Two and a Half Men" on the very minute that I had posted this. 

Fake fakers, Wellesian style

F FOR FAKE (1973)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Orson Welles had the effrontery to believe that this highly original film on art and the act of creating would be theatrically released in the United States. It never was and was only shown on television in the United States and in Europe, and at some film festivals. What a shame because "F For Fake" is one of the director's finest achievements (and by far his last complete effort), a Byzantine rethinking of what a film should be and what it could be. It is also a reconstructive essay on art and the artists who manage to create the art in question in any given media. Welles takes the approach of looking at the media of painting, literature, architecture and films, and this film is a testament and a labor of love to anyone who is involved in the arts.

"F For Fake" begins with Welles arriving at a train station showing a magic coin trick to an awestruck boy. He is interrupted by a passersby (Oja Kodar) who asks him, "Up to your old tricks again?" Welles is then greeted by a film crew led by another director Francois Reichenbach, and tells them that there is a fascinating story involving that passersby. We then realize that this is not really a film and not quite a documentary, so what is it? Well, there is another shot of Welles except this time he is at an editing table looking at shots of Oja Kodar walking on a crowded street surrounded by dozens of onlookers. But who is she? Welles then apologizes for jumping around all over the place, and sets forth in motion a story about the most famous art forger of all time, Elmyr De Hory (who tragically committed suicide after this film was released). He paints fakes so brilliantly that museums often mistake it for the real thing (Modigliani, Picasso, Monet are some of his famous "fakes"). Another story circulates around a notable biographer, Clifford Irving, who has written a bio on De Hory, and has just been accused of writing a fake one on Howard Hughes! He insists he met with Hughes, but who is telling the truth? And is it possible that De Hory is not a faker, but a fake faker?

This may all sound ambiguous and confounding, but one of the pleasures of "F For Fake" is the constant parallels Welles draws between all these interweaving stories. He comes up with theories on the importance of the creator or creators: in one beautifully stylized sequence, we see superimpositions of the many facets of the Chartres cathedral. Astounding architecture (independent film director Stan Brakhage once made a short film about it) but, in the end, does it matter who created this wonder of the world? Of course not, probably dozens of skilled artisans and the like and we may never know their names.

Welles draws another parallel with his own life and work (apparently, this film was intended as an attack against film critic Pauline Kael's written accusation that Welles shared none of the writing credit for "Citizen Kane"). He gives examples of his famous hoax, "The War of the Worlds" broadcast, and the fact that all his films, indeed all films, are illusions, essentially fakes. So by exemplifying this idea, Welles often shows his film crew filming him as he makes his case before the camera wearing a hat and a cape and performing magic tricks.

"F For Fake" is not an easy film to digest, and it will take more than one viewing since it is not told in a straightforward manner. But the rewards are plenty, and the sight of Welles speaking in his coarse, deep voice is a splendid pleasure already. He keeps us involved and intrigued, and we start to question the validity of the importance of the creator of an artistic masterpiece - of course, it adds to historical lore to know who the artist is, but the work must also speak for itself. As Welles explains at the beginning, any film is likely to be some sort of lie, and so he insists that the whole truth will be spoken for the first forty-five minutes of the film. At the end, when we discover that Oja Kodar, the passersby from earlier, is in fact not Pablo Picasso's daughter nor did she sell any of the paintings of herself painted by Picasso to a museum, Welles declares that he did lie his head off.

In its constantly time-switching narrative, freeze-frames, and sense of self-consciousness, Orson Welles made one of his greatest achievements on film - a master class on experimentation with the medium and the infinite possibilities presented with tackling the film-within-the-film. It is a shame it was not discovered initially, but some of its style and rapid cutting is evident in Al Pacino's superb "Looking for Richard," an expose on Shakespeare and Richard III. Francois Truffaut declared "F For Fake" as one of the best films of the 1970's - he could not have been more right. Right up with "Citizen Kane," "Touch of Evil," and "The Trial," "F For Fake" reigns supreme.

Footnote: There are cameos by Joseph Cotten and film editor on "Kane," Robert Wise. There is also a brief sequence with Oja and late actor Laurence Harvey at an airport "from quite another film," says Welles. I wonder if this was footage for his uncompleted film "The Deep" since Welles can be seen in his cape minus a beard.

Orson Welles' unfinished Hollywood critique

ORSON WELLES' UNFINISHED HOLLYWOOD CRITIQUE

By Jerry Saravia

Time and again, for the last thirty years or so, we have heard reports that an unveiling of Orson Welles' unfinished film from the 1970's, entitled "The Other Side of the Wind," was imminent. And time after time, disappointing reports continually emerged ranging from Beatrice Welles (Welles's daughter) blocking the release of the film in any form, to a mangling of funds that includes financing from the Shah of Iran leading to it being locked in a Parisian vault, to the Showtime network eager to cough up the completion funds for the editing of the film, 40 minutes of which had been edited by Welles, though it remained heavily dependent on who edited the film to the beat of Welles' style and if the original financiers could come to an agreement. So will we see "The Other Side of the Wind" in some form, some day?

I say, yes, except it will be a rough cut of no more than the edited 40 minutes. Keep in mind that clips from the film were first shown when Welles was honored by the AFI in 1975, leading to speculation that the airing of such clips were a direct step in acquiring completion funds (which ironically is the plot of the film itself). Since then, one more clip surfaced in the fascinating documentary, "Orson Welles: The One Man Band" and, in the last couple of years, another clip appeared on youtube of directors Henry Jaglom and Paul Mazursky verbally sparring about the merits of past films by Jake Hannaford (the fictional director in the film). All the footage thus shown is incredible and well ahead of its time for its fast-cutting style employing different film stocks and many different points-of-view. Case in point would be the birthday party scene where John Huston plays the maverick, macho film director, Jake Hannaford (Jake being the nickname Welles used for John), celebrating his 70th birthday while paparazzi and a film crew gather around taking his pictures. Susan Strasberg appears as a Pauline Kael-type film critic, Juliette Riche, and Peter Bogdanovich is the young hot-shot film director, Brooks Otterlake (originally played by Rich Little), who is a box-office draw. This one scene alone shows us a world that might not exist anymore (except maybe for some film elitists), where the art of film and gaining box-office dollars and who is copying whom or paying homage is discussed. This clip in particular anticipates Oliver Stone's style used in "J.F.K.," "Natural Born Killers" and "Nixon" with a rapid-fire succession of images that are paced and cut with the energy of an addict on speed.

Two other scenes had also been shown. One other clip shown at the AFI had film director Norman Foster (who helmed the exciting 1942 thriller "Journey into Fear") as a Hannaford stooge convincing a young film executive that Hannaford's film is not in trouble, and hilariously providing commentary for the unfinished film that seems to have no clear narrative. The other clip (shown in "Orson Welles: The One-Man Band") is a highly erotic scene of Oja Kodar (Welles's stunning girlfriend of 20 years) having sex with the leading actor of Hannaford's film in the front seat of a car during a rainstorm. This clearly shows, as Bogdanovich pointed out, that Welles wanted to make a dirty movie like "Last Picture Show" and it is by far the most erotic footage I've ever seen in a film, hands down. More clips had been shown at the Harvard Film Archive in 2008, presented by Stefan Drossler (more on that presentation can be found at http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=302#more-302)

Orson Welles has gained a favoritism and appeal since his death in 1985. Two screenplays of his, "The Big Brass Ring" and "The Cradle Will Rock," have been made into films (when they couldn't get any financing while Welles was alive). "Citizen Kane" is practically mentioned every time a list of the greatest films ever made is compiled. The incomplete "It's All True," not to mention a restoration of "Touch of Evil" in 1998 edited to Welles' own original specifications, were eventually theatrically released. "The Deep," a 1970 flick with the late Laurence Harvey, might actually see the light of day someday, though it only exists in black-and-white and color workprints. But it is the monumental epicness of "The Other Side of the Wind" that looms larger than any other incomplete Welles film, if for no other reason than the spectacular cast. John Huston, Susan Strasberg, Peter Bogdanovich, Oja Kodar, Cameron Mitchell, Peter Jason, Dennis Hopper, Mercedes McCambridge, journalist and film historian Joseph McBride and, yes, even future film director Cameron Crowe round out the cast. I'd say make the 40 minutes of film available as a documentary on the making of this legendary film. I'd definitely pay to see that.


FOOTNOTE: For a further clarification of the financing of "Other Side of the Wind," here is an excerpt from "Bright Lights Film Journal":

'Welles raised $1 million for The Other Side of the Wind himself and received a further $1 million from a Paris-based Iranian company, Les films de l'Astrophore, headed by Medhi Boushehri, who happened to be the Shah of Iran's brother-in-law. At this point, a Spanish investor embezzled around a quarter of a million from the production and disappeared into Europe. The Iranian company agreed to provide further funding to replace the missing cash, on the condition they received a higher percentage, with the result that l'Astrophore finally owned around 80 percent of the film, and were denying Welles the right to final cut. At this point, the Iranian revolution happened, the Shah fell, and the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and all foreign assets, including the negative of Orson Welles' final film, came under his jurisdiction.'

UPDATE: Netflix, the streaming giant, acquired the rights to "The Other Side of the Wind" and it has not only been completed, it is also going to be streaming on Nov 2nd of 2018. Early screenings have been held at the Venice Film Festival and they have been largely positive. It is a pleasure to know that this film has finally been unveiled for the public, not just for film buffs but for Orson Welles fans and John Huston fans. Thank goodness because its arrival in this world of conflated cinema standards, made a time pre-"Star Wars," indicates what cinema might have been - adventurous, intoxicating, perplexing and complex. 

To be chaste or not be to chaste - that is the Edwardian question

NEW MOON

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"New Moon" is a super sleek locomotive of a movie - a serene, spirited, darkly obsessive and intriguing film that deserves more acclaim than it has received. I am surprised writing this myself but, being an admirer of the film "Twilight," this movie is superior in all departments.

"New Moon" continues the obsessive and undying love between 18-year-old Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and her vampire lover, 103-year-old Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). Tension erupts right from the start when Bella is invited to the Cullens' glass house and she cuts herself and gets a few more abrasions and the Cullen clan, well being that they are vampires...you get my point. Edward summons himself elsewhere, far away from Bella whom he is afraid of hurting. Let's be honest: how long can a relationship between a human and a vampire last? Not very long, when you consider humans have souls and vampires do not. Of course, fans of the Stephenie Meyers' book series know this abandonment will not last.

While Edward and the whole Cullen gang leave the sleepy woodsy town of Forks, Bella finds a new male admirer in Jacob (Taylor Lautner). They are good friends and she feels comfortable around him - Jacob can fix motorcycles and apparently she has a couple to lend him. Unfortunately, Jacob is not an ordinary human - he is a born werewolf! His whole family is, including his brothers who feel the need to be barechested, even in stormy weather. This wolf clan is threatened by the Cullens and there is a treaty that prevents Jacob from protecting Bella when a vampire is nigh. What is Bella to do when she falls in love with Jacob, and has consistent visions of Edward warning her to steer clear of dangerous thoughts, like riding around town with male, sexed-up strangers in their motorcycles!

I came to "New Moon" with no expectations except to hope it came a tenth close to the atmosphere and serenity of "Twilight." I was not disappointed. This movie adds more atmosphere with more sweeping overhead shots of the dense and dank woods and rainy, steep cliffs. The special-effects also blend in nicely with the outdoor day shots, particularly the wolves that look convincing and expressive enough in their CGI glory, or the finale bit with the Volturi council (a vampire elite of sorts) inside an Italian throne room where some thrashing occurs.

Director Chris Weitz and writer Melissa Rosenberg also add more depth to the troubled Bella who wakes up from having nightmares about Edward, and tries to shake and balance her love for the forlorn vampire and the forlorn werewolf. Team Jacob or Team Edward? Tough choice. Either way, you'll be left swooning by the precious Kristen Stewart - a dynamite actress who knows how to convey just enough with every line reading so we know what she is thinking. Robert Pattinson is just as glum and buff Taylor has moments of aggression that work well enough to make you think he might tear you apart. Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning add finishing touches of vampiric energy that diminish any memory of the forgettable "Underworld" trilogy.

Some critics have lambasted the "Twilight" films and books for its Victorian assumptions that teenagers can fall eternally in love by initially practicing abstinence. But this surprisingly deft and emotional roller-coaster ride of a movie, "New Moon," is ultimately about overcoming all obstacles for the one true love and making sacrifices. In Bella's case, it is about turning into a vampire in order to be with Edward. Nobody has considered that she is a teenager in love with a 103-year-old inhuman creature with the face of Robert Pattinson. More psychoanalysis should be underway on that fact alone.

Vampires sparkle in rain-soaked country

TWILIGHT (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Vampires are fascinating creatures because they represent the undead and seem unconnected to humans and their proclivities. Not so with the vampires in "Twilight" - they play baseball and attend the prom! There are a couple of new twists on vampires in "Twilight," an absorbing love story that has a rushed third act but it still manages to maintain interest.

Kristen Stewart is Bella Swan, the quiet teenage girl from Phoenix who has moved to the town of Forks, Washington, to live with her father. This town is almost always cloudy and drenched in rain. Her new classmates seem like a joyful bunch, but there is also a group of emaciated teens with dark brown eyes. One of them is a brooding James Dean lookalike named Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), who is even more quiet than she is. Bella sees something in Edward, something either otherworldly or she has met the sulkiest, most distancing teenager in history. But when she is rescued by Edward, either during a potential rape attack or getting smashed by an out-of-control truck, she grows smitten and eventually discovers his secret: he is a vampire. I think the ice-cold skin might have been the tip-off.

Legions have read Stephenie Myers' novel so they know what to expect. I suppose a teen-friendly vampire soap opera is a might close to my initial expectations, but I was pleasantly surprised by the film's central key relationship. What elevates it I think is Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson who have undeniable chemistry, and keep the romance believable and honest. In fact, had Edward not been a vampire, it wouldn't have mattered. She wants to kiss him, make love to him, but all Edward wants to do is climb up trees. He makes her long for him, and I can imagine that many teenage girls find this idea arresting, forlorn and tragic all at the same time. Yeah, he is a vampire and she is human so sex could be a problem. The key word is abstinence but I must say it is refreshing to see a movie where the teenagers can love each other first before the sexual shenanigans begin. Director Catherine Hardwicke (who helmed the potent "Thirteen") knows and understands Bella and Edward enough to give them weight and some measure of complexity.

"Twilight" does suffer a bit when it focuses on Edward Cullen's family, who all live in a glass house in the middle of the woods. They welcome Bella with Italian food that they obviously cannot eat themselves. The Cullen clan also play baseball but only when lightning strikes (!) and they only drink the blood of animals. And when we are introduced to another group of vampires who kill humans, I felt my heart sinking a bit. A better subplot given less screen time is to the Native American family who might be werewolves. Granted that many of these subplots are in the book and perhaps figure in later installments, but I grew weary of the evil vampire clan and their determination to go after Bella. Perhaps due to Stewart and Pattinson's love story, I felt these other elements distracted a bit.

Still, "Twilight" is a serene and strangely beautiful film with two charismatic leads. The love story blooms and stays with you, nicely amplified by Stewart and Pattinson who give this film an ethereal humanity you don't see much of in movies anymore. Hardly a great movie nor a stunning new saga in vampire lore, "Twilight" is still captivating and makes you swoon. It is just a sweet love story that happens to revolve around vampires.

35 Years of Indiana Jones

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
Original review from 2001

No other movie in the last thirty-five years has given me greater pleasure than "Raiders of the Lost Ark." It is the epitome of high adventure, pure spectacle and grand entertainment. In fact, it is the most entertaining action-adventure movie of all time - the only film, outside of the prequel and sequels in the Indiana Jones series, that is 100% pure escapism with a greater velocity of escapist scenes of peril and action than any other film prior. Its serialesque quotient is so high that it set a standard since director Steven Spielberg upped the ante by making it intense and bloodcurling every step of the way. It also helps that Harrison Ford is the gruff, reluctant hero of the film, sidestepping danger from every angle, from giant boulders to death traps involving poisonous arrows to a pit of snakes, and so on. Karen Allen was the perfect leading lady...tough and lovely in a white dress. So below is my review of the film commemorating its twentieth anniversary in 2001. If adventure has a name, it is still Indiana Jones.

The late Pauline Kael once said that a film is only worth seeing once and that the initial viewing is usually the best - one's impressions are often correct upon seeing a film the first time. When I first saw "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981, I could not wait to see it again. And again. And again. The film is a thunderous assault on the senses and a wonder to behold, but more than that - it is a roller coaster ride that you want to keep visiting again and again. It is thrilling, scary, adventurous, spooky, amusing, nerve-wracking and the kind of movie that will literally keep you on the edge of your seat.

By now, everyone knows who Indiana Jones is. He is the resourceful, stubborn, educated archaeologist and adventurer seeking unusual artifacts around the globe in the era of the 1930's. The first sequence, notably the most gripping opening sequence in the entire action-adventure genre, has Indiana in Peru entering a dangerous cave where a golden idol is kept. He must endure several booby-traps before acquiring it. The action never lets up as he faces a rolling boulder, poisonous darts, collapsing temple walls, ugly corpses and so on. It is a continuous action serial where we wonder if the hero will make it out of one mishap after another. He always does, of course.

Harrison Ford is pitch perfect as Indiana Jones, showing sly changes from a bespectacled professor who is admired by his students to an action hero with a felt hat and trusty bullwhip who never thinks twice about shooting a swordsman (easily the best joke in the film). In fact, it is a shock after the opening sequence to see Indiana teaching an archaeology class - who is this guy, we wonder. When he is asked to find the Lost Ark of the Covenant, a relic being sought by Adolf Hitler, the gleam shows in his eyes as he is ready for adventure all over again. Indiana's first stop in this adventure is Nepal where an old flame, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), has a medallion that is a key to finding the Ark. She denies having it, and punches him in the face for ignoring her for so long (turns out that Indiana had deflowered her when they were younger). The villains enter as he leaves, threaten Marion since they also seek the medallion, and a shootout in a bar turns into yet another thrilling action setpiece. Other stops around the globe include Cairo and some fortress where the Ark is to be unveiled on some unnamed island. Indiana rescues Marion and the medallion from Nepal, and they confront a variety of dangers and pratfalls along the way. There are mean Nazis, bare-chested, bald fighters, slithering snakes, rotting temples, poisonous dates (the fruit that is), clever monkeys, naval ships, trucks, rotating planes, and so much more that you feel you have entered a museum of 1930's memorabilia come to life. It is a pulp fiction world that director Steven Spielberg loves as does most people and it shows. And the action never stops, though it is not as headache-inducing as say "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." Spielberg knows when to quit, when to let us breathe. It is only fitting that there is even a scene where Indiana sleeps instead of making love to Marion. He needs his rest.

What makes all this silliness work is Ford's charismatic performance - he makes us believe in him and makes the hero vulnerable enough to make us hope he will make it out of every single jam he is in. Also noteworthy is a hissing villain, one who is as credible as Ford is as a hero. Belloq (Paul Freeman), a French archaeologist, also has a gleam in his eyes and wants the Ark for his own needs - "a radio for speaking to God." Both of these men are in pursuit of a magical relic and will do anything to get it. 

Steven Spielberg is at his very best here, making every event as cinematic as possible and accentuating all the visual gags with flair. The action scenes are tightly edited and frightening in how explosive they are, especially the climactic truck chase where Indiana rides horseback to get inside the truck holding the Ark while dozens of jeeps and trucks go after him (as if this was the beginning of World War II). The gags come from everywhere but are never obtrusive, even if at one point a monkey does the Nazi salute! But what makes "Raiders of the Lost Ark" wonderful is Spielberg's sense of fun and his surefire direction, which somehow makes all the old cliches seem new again. The old marksman versus the swordsman joke is old-hat but Ford's sense of desperation makes the scene seem wondrous all over again, and one understands his reflexive action of shooting the swordsman. Every scene tingles with excitement and tension. The first time I saw the famous opening sequence, I was literally grabbing the arms of my theatre seat. I am not sure how Spielberg does it exactly but it works in ways most action movies have not since - it is witty and there is an element of surprise that engages us. The rousing, memorable musical score by the incredible John Williams lends support and enhances our enjoyment.

The cast is superb and, surprisingly, there is little in the way of overacting or exaggeration as say in "Romancing the Stone" or "Jake Speed." Harrison Ford's secret is that he plays it straight, as if he believed what was happening all around him. It is not easy for an actor not to wink at all the chaos and mayhem but he succeeds admirably. Karen Allen is a great choice as the also stubborn, tough, romantic interest in Indiana's life - a shame she did not appear in any of the other entries of this series (Note: She did return in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"). She is clearly the woman for Indiana and knows how to match his wits, and delivers a knockout punch. For some good belly laughs, there is John Rhys-Davies as Indy's Cairo sidekick, Sallah. And for a charming yet insane villain in the grandest of traditions, there is Paul Freeman as the sympathetic Belloq who even has a thing for Marion.

"Raiders" does not end on an uplifting note. Instead it sort of ends abruptly as Indiana reclaims the Ark (what did you expect?) and brings it back to the United States, yet it falls in the hands of the government rather than a museum for research and study. There is no sense of victory, and yet it is Spielberg toying with us all over again. The movie is a big wind-up action toy, a comic-book style film yet infused with humanity, humor and horror. That is why it remains the best action-adventure film ever made, as rousing and engaging as any film ever made. The sequels and numerous rip-offs tried but couldn't do it justice. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" showcases Spielberg at his kinetic best, bringing us into a world we can only dream of. After all, isn't that what great movies are all about?

Homage to buddy-buddy cop comedies? A cop out I say!

COP OUT (2010)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 Kevin Smith has been an influential force in the independent film community. There was a time when nobody could talk about anything but "Clerks." Since that 1994 comedy, there has been critical praise (myself included) for "Chasing Amy," "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," and "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back." "Cop Out" is the first Kevin Smith film to not include his screenwriting skills. I think those skills might have elevated this stinker beyond the bowels of turdland.

With typically wisecracking, bald-headed Bruce Willis and foaming-at-the-mouth-to-elucidate-every syllable Tracy Morgan headlining the cast, this should be a winning buddy-buddy cop comedy. The problem is the movie is eager to explode with the usual cliches that have since become a bore and a trial and half to sit through. The cops are after a drug dealer. Tracy Morgan dresses up as a cell phone. Willis is tough but getting too old for this...you get the picture. The cops have caused a ruckus, let the bad guys get away and we get the standard scene of giving up your shield and gun. The cops still want to pursue the drug dealer, mainly because a precious baseball card was stolen by a junkie (Seann William Scott) and...need I go on?

"Cop Out" has precious few hallmarks of Kevin Smith's writing, most likely improvised or suggested by Smith. One example is Bruce Willis standing outside the window of the interrogation room and naming the titles of all the films Tracy Morgan is acting out against a suspect. One of them is from "Die Hard" which Willis's character has not seen. That is funny. I also like the far too precious screen time of Seann William Scott who has a habit of repeating exactly what another person says to him. Other than that, the film wastes the great talent of Rashida Jones in a throwaway role. "Cop Out" is exactly what the title implies, and less. The canceled TV show, "The Good Guys," was funnier and tighter-paced.