An Alternate Sequel Universe (a definite first)

SUPERMAN II (1980)

THE RICHARD DONNER CUT

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

For years, we have heard that an alternate cut by director Richard Donner ("Superman") existed of "Superman II." As many of you know, Richard Lester ("A Hard Day's Night") took over the directing reins of the sequel (thanks to the Salkinds, the producers of the films) and reshot 50% of the film, excluding much of Donner's footage. So here we have "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" and, though it is entertaining, it is not quite as good or as sharp and fast-paced as the Lester cut. One must tread carefully when reviewing this film because it has many rough edges and some of the editing could've been tightened. Where there was flair in the Lester cut, the Donner cut suffers from abruptness in cuts and transitions. (Beware: this review contains spoilers).

Before we get to what is flawed, let's discuss what is right. The opening sequence is even better (though I still miss the scene where the Krypton guard has his neck snapped), showing returnee Marlon Brando as Jor-El who sentences three Krypton criminals, Zod (Terence Stamp), Non (Jack O'Halloran) and Ursa (Sarah Douglas), to eternal damnation by imprisoning them in a mirror-like prison called the Phantom Zone. What's nice about the scene is that we see Brando, who was edited out of the original Lester opening thanks to studio financial problems mainly Brando's exorbitant fee, and it leads to seeing Superman throwing a rocket from the original film into space where it breaks the Phantom Zone and frees the three criminals. In the Lester cut, Superman saves Lois from a hydrogen bomb in Paris and hurls the bomb into space where it breaks the criminals free.

Another noteworthy improvement is a remarkably silly and superb scene where Lois discovers Clark Kent is Superman by drawing glasses and a suit on a newspaper picture of Superman. What follows is truly ingenious and hilarious on so many levels that it tops the Niagara Falls footage from the Lester cut. And I should mention that I enjoy Brando's appearance at the Fortress of Solitude where he explains to his son how the son becomes the father, and the father becomes the son. Jor-El disappears forever helping Kent, who had become mortal, to regain his super strength.

But I must say that I prefer Lester's version overall. Donner's cut surprisingly leaves the Superman/Lois relationship in the dust. The scenes that amplified the chemistry between the two - the two confession scenes, particularly the cigarettes and orange juice scene where friendship is discussed - are eliminated and give the relationship less focus. For myself, Lester's "Superman II" was as much a love story as anything else, and it was the sweeping romance between Superman and Lois that gave that film a mark of humanism that has since been eclipsed in the latter sequels. We do have a scene, basically a screen test, where Lois fires a gun at Clark and where Clark admits he is Superman (of course, the gun has blanks). But the Niagara Falls confession from the Lester cut seemed richer and more dynamic, mainly because more was at stake (remember the saving-Lois- from-Eiffel-Tower footage that is gone from this version), and the dialogue was crisper (Lois from the Lester cut: "Maybe you didn't want to with your mind, but maybe you wanted to with your heart," in reference to Clark's admission he is Superman).

In another noteworthy yet uneven change, Superman has sex with Lois before he is changed into a mortal. In the Lester version, Superman becomes mortal first before taking Lois to the cozy Solitude bed. My question is: did that explain how Jor-El shows up in the new version - he heard them boinking and said to himself, no immortal son of mine can have sex with a mortal? Also strange is Lois's appearance - she is seen from above in a long lens wearing a Superman shirt! Since we don't see Lois's expressions in close-up after learning that her man is giving up immortality, the scene suffers. In the Lester version, we see close-ups of Lois and she says those famous words: "You did all that for me?" This was before Superman takes her to bed.

And there is the deus-ex-machina ending, (basically lifted from "Superman I") where Superman turns back time and restores Metropolis to what it once was before Zod and his two leather-strapped "hippies from Los Angeles" came into town. I definitely prefer the Lester ending where Clark kisses Lois and hypnotizes her into forgetting all the events she has been involved in. The kiss, preceded by Lois breaking down in tears ("I didn't sleep all night"), was more emotionally true and quite touching. Superman reversing time was more powerful in the original film - here, it seems like a cop-out.

What's missing in the Donner cut is the emotion and the gobs of humanism that Lester lent to the theatrical version. We can nitpick about some fun scenes from Lester's cut that are deleted from this version (the cellophane S, the battle at the Fortress of Solitude, Superman kicking Non in the face in mid-flight, Superman returning the flag to the White House, the defacement of Mount Rushmore) but the fact is that despite all the changes in this new version, we never feel as grounded about Lois and Superman as we did in Lester's cut. Overall, "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" is entertaining and should not be missed by film fans and Superman fans (the extra Lex Luthor and Miss Tesmacher scenes are priceless). It is just missing some of the heart. Footnote: What the hell happened with Miss Tesmacher anyway?

Supe said 'Drop Dead'

SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The summer of 1987 was littered with dozens of sequels and remakes yet the one sequel that did not satisfy expectations and basically destroyed its original predecessors was "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," a campy, bizarre movie that gave Superman a bad name. No longer were truth, justice and the American way terms with which the public were interested in seeing anymore (Two years later came the dark Batman movie, a huge hit). I'll admit this fourth entry in the series is tired and unimaginative yet it is never boring, just plain stupid. It is so stupid and unintentionally funny that it rates as a guilty pleasure.

This time, the Daily Planet is in the middle of a takeover by a corporate giant run by a tycoon (Sam Wanamaker) and his sexy daughter, Lacy (Mariel Hemingway). It is up to Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve), Lois Lane (the witty Margot Kidder) and Jimmy Olsen (Marc McClure) to stop this tycoon from turning the Daily Planet into a sensational tabloid with headlines that read "Is the World at Brink?" Problem is Lacy has the hots for poor old Clark and wants him to explore the night life of Metropolis and other social events. Then there's the fantastic double date between Lacy, Clark, Lois and Superman (!) that has got to be seen to be believed, and is an absolute classic.

Superman has problems of his own, though. His archenemy, Lex Luthor (the reliable Gene Hackman), is up to his old tricks again with the help of the "Dutch Elm disease of the family," his dim-witted nephew (Jon Cryer). Since Superman is ridding the world of nuclear weapons, Lex gets the brilliant idea of becoming a black-market arms profiteer, and creates a Nuclear Man. This new villain is so strong that he can even tear Superman's skin and make him sick.

The plot is dense and exciting enough to create a dazzling new Superman adventure. Alas, it was not to be. "Superman IV" was directed by Sidney J. Furie, a director below-par when compared to the formidable talents of Richard Donner and Richard Lester. The special-effects are amazingly atrocious and third-rate after witnessing the spectacular effects of the first three films. For example, there are exploding volcanos spewing what looks like tomato juice; a Statue of Liberty carried by Nuclear Man where the statue seems to be of greater width than the city of Metropolis; the astonishingly bad model of the Great Wall of China; and Superman's outfit during the flying sequences that seems to turn from turquoise to a muddy green color, probably due to bad color processing and poor blue screen projection. Wait, there's more! The obligatory Superman/Lois flight above the clouds is as hokey as you can imagine - one minute they are flying by the Brooklyn Bridge and the next second, they are in Upstate, New York (!) - a result of bad editing. Or they took a cue from the rear-screen projection of the Bogie classic Casablanca, which has one scene where Bogie and Ingrid Bergman are driving and the background changes from one location to the other. If any film needs a Special Edition renovation, it would be "Superman IV." The effects here are a mix of the George Reeves style with a dose of Ed Wood thrown in.

Despite those gaping flaws, "Superman IV" occasionally works. The cast makes the characters as sincere and believable as ever before. Christopher Reeve continues to make the dual personality of Superman vivid and credible. Margot Kidder is alluring as always, and adds subtle hints of humor to Lois's character, especially when she is trying to learn French fluently. Her scenes with Reeve sparkle with a deep humanity and sense of love. Gene Hackman's return as the hefty Luthor is this movie's biggest surprise and he enlivens the proceedings with his trademark repartee - his first confrontation with Superman atop the Empire State Building is sheer magic and funny as hell ("Why don't you stop and smell the roses, huh? Get yourself a pet. A kitten, A puppy.")

"Superman IV" was severely truncated before being released by Warner Brothers, and it definitely shows (its $40 million budget was trimmed to $17 million). There are too many loose ends and inexplicable moments where the laws of gravity are defied. Can the mortal Lacy really survive in space without the aid of a helmet or a ship? Come on. And since when is it windy in space? And how exactly does Superman survive imminent death when he's severely struck and beaten by Nuclear Man who tears his skin? And why is Nuclear Man so interested in Lacy? Business or pleasure?

Several advance screenings for critics were not held, especially in Chicago where Siskel and Ebert did not view it prior to its release. Gene Siskel had mentioned on "The Tonight Show" (with Johnny Carson) that he had not seen it, and that was not a good sign.

Despite these and many other flaws, "Superman IV" is still decent enough (though many comic-book fans will cry foul, if they haven't already), and it does offer a chance to see Reeve in his final incarnation as Supe baby before he became paralyzed. It is a vast improvement over the dreadful "Superman III", and it brings back the characters with some measure of respect and poignance.

Doesn't he even own a shirt?

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE (2010)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

This is not supposed to happen. Ordinarily, a series of sequels are not supposed to improve with each subsequent chapter. "Eclipse," the third chapter in the "Twilight" Saga, is the best by far, alternately sleek, adventurous, romantically heightened, dramatic and consistently surprising. I can say that I cannot wait to see how this all ends with "Breaking Dawn," an unusual ringing endorsement on my part.

Bella Swan, when we last saw her, was adamant about living a life with Edward (Robert Pattinson), the century-old vampire stuck in brooding James Dean mode. It seems she chose Edward over Jacob (Taylor Lautner), a werewolf sans T-shirts, yet she loves them both so what is a girl going to do when choosing between a vampire and a werewolf? Well, it turns out that marrying a vampire means she has to die, and living with a werewolf means she can live and breathe as a human. Weighing life and death options of this fantastical nature seems a bit much to carry on the shoulders of an 18-year-old girl.

Record high disappearances of young folk are occurring in Seattle. These youths are bitten by vampires and become undead fang-ready monsters, "newborns," collectively killing other folks in what looks like flash mob killings. These newborns are headed for Forks, the cloudy Washington town where the sun barely flickers and where Bella and the whole gang, who are ready to graduate high-school, reside. Edward's clan, the Cullens, reluctantly join the werewolf pack of shirtless Situations, along with Jacob respectively, to stop the newborns who have a potential leader in, geez, I will not give it away. "Twilight" fans know who I am referring to. Added to all this is the swooning between Bella and Edward, and the jealous Jacob whose love for Bella is strong. It is so strong that she wants her to choose him because he feels there can be no future with people whose skin glitters when the sun is out.

Kristen Stewart once again proves what a fantastic actress she is. As with "Adventureland" and "The Runaways," Stewart dazzles the screen with her minimalist expressions - she is so damn good that we wonder what she is really thinking. She conveys brilliantly the choice and the morality of a grave decision that she is so naive and yet so intelligent in pondering - how can someone so young be so willing to die for someone's love whom she still has not had sex with? Stewart somehow makes Bella appear as if she has lived a long life, just like a vampire, and the upshot is that not even Edward wants her to make this fatal decision. After all, the vampires in these stories didn't choose to become vampires.

Robert Pattinson still has a limited role at best, conveying enough poise as Edward but the character is so intriguing and mysterious that I wanted to learn more. Taylor Lautner has improved greatly as Jacob and I almost want to say I am in the Team Jacob camp. Something tells me his character didn't choose to be a werewolf but I guess we will find out in the future installments.

"Eclipse" is swift, superbly acted and remarkably directed (the scene in the tent in freezing temperatures is hypnotic). I am not always a fan of close-ups but these faces of Bella, Jacob and Edward are unforgettable, wondrous, lovely faces - you do not want to turn away from them. I'd be okay with ten more movies about this forlorn love triangle of such improbable proportions, over the period of, well, the rest of their lives. Some might think I am crazy but "Eclipse" is (wait for it, wait...) one of the most emotional, mature and endearing of all teen love stories I have seen. Call me insane as someone who should be subjected to a mental asylum on Shutter Island for even liking this series, but I didn't want it to end.

Cinematic Vampire Note: From what I have seen, I also like the HBO series, "True Blood" and my favorite vampire films are the 1922 and 1979 versions of "Nosferatu, " just so you know where I am coming from.

An apathetic and sour Captain America

CAPTAIN AMERICA (1990)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Video: Jerry at the Movies reviews Captain America (1990)

I had heard of this much maligned version of "Captain America" back in 1990, eagerly anticipating its spring release. The advertising was ubiquitous. Spring of 1990 came and went with no sign of the red, blue and white superhero with his colorful and powerful shield of armor until its debut on home video circa 1992 (it was theatrically released internationally). Having recently seen it, the film is not nearly as bad as some have decried nor is it a disgrace to those who read their Captain America comics. Unfortunately, it is also shapeless, poorly edited and succeeds more as a work print than an answer print.

Matt Salinger (the late J.D. Salinger's son) is the sincere Steve Rogers, a polio-infected volunteer for an Army experiment where he is injected with a serum to become a super soldier. His purpose: help fight WW II and defeat the powerful Red Skull (Scott Paulin), who has plans to destroy half if not all of Europe (and become President of the U.S.). We get an early scene of Steve, codenamed Captain America, fighting the Red Skull before being strapped to a rocket and landing in the frozen tundra of Alaska. This all happens in the first twenty minutes of the film, as it shifts to 1990 where Steve is looking for his future bride-to-be of the past. There is also a curious Washington reporter (Ned Beatty); an even more curious and idealistic President of the U.S. (Ronny Cox), who first witnessed Captain America strapped to that rocket when he was a kid; a conniving, corrupt general (Darren McGavin); and the Red Skull himself, (an Italian in this adaptation rather than German) who is the head of an "international cartel." This modern-day Skull doesn't resemble the iconic arch-nemesis - he had plastic surgery and wears beautiful suits and slicked back black hair, pontificating about "Captain Ammerriiicaaa."

The movie shifts and compresses so many events that there is no time to breathe and absorb the details. The opening sequence features a slaughter of an Italian family by some Nazis where some intelligent Italian kid is whisked away and used as a guinea pig to become a super soldier or the future Red Skull? Then we get Steve Rogers and his idealistic commitments to World War II but he is more cipher than human being. Once he awakens in the future of 1990 and sees that audio recorders are made in Japan and that punk kids asking him for a cigarette is a sign of trouble, Matt Salinger plays Steve as a blank, indifferent and big sourpuss of a Captain America (and the laughably rubber suit does him no favors). Ronny Cox brightens things a little as the President and Darren McGavin gets a few juicy scenes, though Ned Beatty's rambling, conspiracy theorist reporter is dismissed from the film a little too early. Still, none of these scenes jell nor are they part of any coherent whole.

The Red Skull's visage in the present-day Italy scenes is not red (I suppose he wants to blend in). Despite that, Scott Paulin is deliciously evil and handles every scene he has with devilish skill. I am still not sure I understood his plans to destroy Europe except that somehow, this would enable him to become President of the U.S. I know people in the 21st century accept a black President but one with a Michael Corleone accent with a frightening visage? I think not.

"Captain America" came from a production company (producers Stan Lee and Menahem Golan in tow) which, according to the director Albert Pyun, ran out of money too soon after filming commenced. A mediocre superhero epic overall, the film is truncated and is poorly constructed and hardly fleshed out - it has a rushed, let's-get-it-in-the-can feeling with no attention to a specific, coherent story. This "Captain America" version is not boring and not nearly as unwatchable as the Reb Brown TV movies from the late 70's, but there is nothing to cheer about when the hero is cheerless and apathetic. One wink to the camera from Matt Salinger at the end of the film is too little, too late.

The Facebook generation

CATFISH (2010)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There are celebrities and critics who find "Catfish's" reality dubious. I don't know why but in an age where any and everything can be digitally manipulated, it would take a talent too enormous to fake this film. You have heard of it. "Catish" is about a facebook relationship that ends up revealing the truth of that relationship through, gasp, actual physical interaction. Some have declared "The Social Network" to be the definitive film about facebook and the social networks we cling to. I think "Catfish" will be the definitive film because it appears to be the most honest.

Nev Schulman, Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost are three New York videographers who film and photograph modern dancers. Abby is a 9-year-old Michigan girl who sends Nev a painting of one of his photographs and develops a relationship with him through facebook, that global social interactive website. As Nev gets to know Abby, he also learns of her family, including Abby's mom, Angela, and the eldest daughter, 19-year-old Meghan. Meghan supposedly has a horse farm. There is also talk of an exhibition of paintings that Nev has received by mail in his New York office. But it is really Meghan whom Nev has a keen and vested interest in, talking to her on the phone, and hearing her covers of songs like "Tennessee Stud." Let's say that nothing is exactly what it seems.

"Catfish" is pulse-pounding, frequently on the verge of making you cringe in anticipation of what you may or may not find about this relationship. The Meghan we see in the facebook photo album looks like a supermodel - the girl of Nev's dreams. When we discover the reality, we find that Nev was predisposed to a reality that is fake in nature - not all women look like supermodels and, to be fair, not many look like George Clooney or Nev. 24-year-old Nev looks like a handsome, intelligent guy but he is naive and falls for someone who, let's face it, exists in digital air.

As I mentioned earlier, some find the authenticity of this film to be suspect. Well, it is no "Blair Witch Project" or "This is Spinal Tap." Some other critics said that the film hits all the right notes yet when one edits a film, we select the best pieces that fit the puzzle, especially a documentary. There may be hours of footage we have not seen that might be boring. I am willing to believe that what transpires in this film is the real thing (even the videographers occasionally forget to compose their shots correctly, especially in scenes where they type in the computer - their heads seem to be chopped off or they shoot the ceiling).

"Catfish" is continually absorbing and thrilling, right up to the conclusion which is miraculous in its understatement. There is no big revelation that we don't see coming but, I can say, the Michigan family is as warm and loving as you might think. If this film was faked, it might have ended with some violent temperament. "Catfish" will leave you exhilarated, surprised and elated - there is a joy that comes from the film's deeper subtext about today's need to socially interact in, yes, digital air that will you leave you thinking and ruminating for days and weeks on end.

Lost in the art of discovering America

ROAD SCHOLAR (1993)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally written in 1999)

Time and again, someone tries to discover America and its nether regions, hoping to make the definitive cultural statement about this country. The problem is that no one can make the definitive statement when America continually grows from one generation to the next. Even the state I live in, New Jersey, is full of stories and historical backgrounds, going back several decades and centuries (read the cult magazine "Weird N.J." for a better perspective). The narrator of the film "Road Scholar" even states how times have changed in America in the last twenty years. "Now Spanish is spoken as much as English," the narrator observes.

The narrator is Andrei Codrescu, a Romanian-born Jew who became an American citizen in 1981. He is best known as an NPR commentator for the program, "All Things Considered," and is a well-known poet. He is witty, urbane, sarcastic, and shrewd. Andrei uses his satiric prose and poetic sensibilities to come up with his own interpretation of America by way of a cross-country road trip. He gets a driver's license, and is off in a cherry-red '68 Cadillac convertible to explore America. Andrei comes up against a community of Christian Communists in upstate New York, accustomed to poverty on the margins despite a profitable business; New Age mysticism, religious militant groups and Native American habitats in New Mexico; the virtually empty, economically ravaged city of Detroit; homeless, crack-addicted Haitian immigrants in New York City; last-minute marriages in Las Vegas (including drive-thru marriages!); a Vietnamese author in San Francisco who is aching to go back to his homeland; an artist who lawfully places a car in her lawn proclaiming it as a piece of art; and so on.

"Road Scholar" has enormous fun in arriving at these different locales and points of interest in America, and it is continuously absorbing in investigating different patterns of life. My major complaint is that certain vignettes could have benefited from more screen time, such as the Detroit artists who place shoes and sneakers on the streets as a reminder of people who once populated a sparsely populated, poor neighborhood. There is also too much time invested on New Mexico mystics and healers - I used to live in Santa Fe and have had enough exposure to them. They are pure "kitsch," as Codrescu often refers to certain aspects of life or to the Statue of Liberty. Other moments show the loss of innocence in America, as in the traveling bus of peace-loving denizens who want to bring back the 60's free love ideals and such without benefit of drugs. I also found a strangely melancholic passage in the depiction of lost dreams in Detroit. One example is the movement of Motown sound from Detroit to the big leagues and how it affected an entire community who felt the music was theirs. In fact, the Detroit section of the film is the most astute as one gathers understanding of how America can let go of one of their cities in times of economic hardships.

If this were just an ordinary documentary about America in the 90's, it would have worked just fine with its look at people of different nationalities. Alas, using Andre as a witty commentator on the scene enlivens the proceedings enormously - he is sometimes sardonic but he also identifies with most of the people, particularly the immigrants who came to this country in hopes of fulfilling their dreams. Some did, and many did not. Andre became a poet and wrote books, and was allowed to have the power of freethinking without getting arrested. His story is just as insightful, and proves just as entertaining. He also recognizes, as reminded to him by the late poet Allen Ginsberg, that America is "an Indian thing." For a relatively fast-paced, inspirational tour of America, you can do no better than "Road Scholar."

You make this room look bad

CRAZY HEART (2009)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

At its best when I listen to it, country music is often about heartbreak. I am no fan of the music (I am partial to Johnny Cash, who wasn't all country) but after watching and listening to "Crazy Heart," I am a bigger fan of the inspirations, which include Merle Haggard, and of the unsung actor Jeff Bridges. Bridges is in every single scene and he brings heartbreak to his performance in all its country glory.

Bridges is the alcoholic, 57-year-old Otis "Bad" Blake, a country singer who reluctantly plays at bowling alleys and bars throughout New Mexico. He is drunk offstage and onstage. In a scene that could have been far more cringe-worthy, he is almost ready to sing until he splits from the stage, vomits outside, and then comes back just as the song is finished by his pick-up band. The audience still applauds because Bad Blake has a charisma that offsets any flaws. That scene is at the heart of "Crazy Heart" because nobody in this film, aside from a doctor at a Santa Fe hospital, tells Blake to stop drinking altogether - just dial it down a few notches. The screenplay dodges and spares us the cliches that normally accompany a has-been singer - this is not the excessively inebriated singer you might have seen in "The Rose," which starred the brilliant Bette Midler. Bad Blake is a middle-of-the-road alcoholic who can stop drinking but wishes not to. He smokes and drinks but the drinking keeps his mind from writing down new lyrics which he improvises on the fly.

Blake meets a young journalist, Jean (ever the effervescent actress, Maggie Gyllenhaal), who wants to write an article about him. They develop a relationship but she knows where to draw the line in the sand when it comes to fathering her four-year-old son, Buddy (Jack Nation). Jean knows instinctively what Blake is all about and there are moments where it is clear that she doesn't know what sort of future he might have with her.

"Crazy Heart" has a few surprises in store for the viewer who has seen this sort of tale before. The cliches are excised and the screenplay wisely chooses to focus on Blake's own forging ahead with his career, despite his drinking and truck accident. Bad Blake won't settle for any old gig - he nearly turns down an arena of 14,000 people in attendance where a supposed rival, a young hotshot country singer named Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) is performing. "Crazy Heart" settles for something redemptive in Bad Blake towards its conclusion. I am not always a fan of a redemption in a character, particularly a drunk, but I realized that Jeff Bridges sells the character so well that a change of heart seems true and honest  (especially in the similar drunk Bridges played in "The Fisher King"). And let us say that not everything that occurs is as expected.

Robert Duvall (co-producer of the film and star of the similar film, "Tender Mercies") is always a welcome presence in any film as a former alcoholic who tends bar and keeps an eye on Blake. Colin Farrell, an actor I do not always care for, also brings authenticity to his role - it is not played as an egotistical new talent who can outsell Blake's own records sales but as someone who admires Blake. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a genuine treasure playing a woman who holds her own fort. She could've played the character as shrill or even conniving - she genuinely cares for Blake but sees his shortcomings.

It is an inescapable fact that Jeff Bridges somehow fits his persona into his characters invisibly, thus we never catch him acting. His portrayal of the alcoholic Bad Blake (which he deservedly won the Oscar for) is stunning to watch because he is subtle and underplays beautifully, just as Jeff Bridges always has. "Crazy Heart" is near-great (I would have preferred more time with Duvall's character myself) but it is Jeff Bridges who burns a hole through your heart.