Friday, June 15, 2012

More science, more chaos with Hercules!

THE ADVENTURES OF HERCULES II (1985)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
"The Adventures of Hercules II" is one of the crudest, unintentionally biggest laugh riots of the latter part of the 20th century. It is cheesy beyond finding a hot dog in the crust of your pizza - the movie operates on the visual level of a hot dog in a cheese pizza floating in space and having it referred to as a planet, a bedazzled planet at that.

The strongest man in the universe, Hercules (Lou Ferrigno), is back as he's lured from presumably suspended animation in space by his father, Zeus. Hercules has to find and extract The Seven Thunderbolts of Zeus that have been stolen by seven different gods and/or superhumans and stop the Moon from colliding with Earth so he can save mankind, though it is hard to tell if one event can cause the other and vice versa. This time, Hercules fights a creature that looks like a giant mop, and is engaged in another fight with the Shakespearean King Minos (William Berger, clearly having a devil of a time), who is resurrected from the dead by drops of blood - a scene right out of any 50's Hammer horror picture. For some reason, both of these Hercules flicks adopt the theme that science leads to chaos, a belief held by King Minos.

"Hercules II" is short on logic or brains yet faster-paced and more fun than Ferrigno's first "Hercules" vehicle. Part Deux was not released theatrically and went straight to video (and appears to have been shot in conjunction with the first film). Just like the first film, this sequel is poor in every department and contains the expected crude special effects and mismatched shots, including a bizarre fight in space where Hercules is animated and turns into an outlined cartoon gorilla (I shat you not); an oracle comprised of sepia-toned two little people; an animated fire monster that looks more electrical; a Medusa creature that wouldn't pass muster on Sesame Street, etc. Still, we do have two stunning Italian babes (Milly Carlucci and Sonia Viviani) for males to ogle; some occasionally surreal sets; incredibly bad (and purposefully?) dubbing; Ferrigno flexing his muscles and growing proportionately to mammoth size in space to...well, you get the picture. It left me with a giant silly grin on my face.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Nuke the Fringe Fodder

INDIANA JONES 
AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008)
An analysis and review by Jerry Saravia
Maybe twenty years was too long. Maybe fans expected the unexpected or something close to nirvana, or the same old, same old. When Steven Spielberg's WWII epic "Saving Private Ryan" was up for release in the early summer of 1998, someone in the press mentioned it as "the Second Coming." Perhaps that is the problem - when Spielberg cranks out another film, expectations run solidly high on the nirvana meter. But when Spielberg is readying up a new Indiana Jones movie, the expectations run to paramount extremes higher than any nirvana scale - it is pretty much a supernova (like George Lucas's "Star Wars" saga). 1989 was the last time that audiences watched Indiana Jones, the rugged, stubborn archaeologist adventurer as he battled Nazis and sought to preserve his dignity with his crotchety old father coming along for the ride. That was the Last Crusade and Indy (Harrison Ford) and his father (Sean Connery) and his clumsy museum curator pal, Marcus Brody (the late Denholm Elliott), rode off into the sunset. Creator George Lucas couldn't come up with any other adventures or MacGuffins so the curtain was closed. Or was it? Even Harrison Ford admitted that you should never say never again, in a taped interview with Entertainment Tonight back in May of 1989. As for the sunset conclusion, it was the end of the 1930's era yet, despite Spielberg's claims, my feeling of riding off into the sunset was it symbolized further Indy adventures, not the end of them.

Clearly George Lucas thought so too and he came up with a new idea: aliens, crystal skulls, a possible son tagging along and the return of Marion Ravenwood, Indy's former flame from "Raiders of the Lost Ark." When Lucas presented the idea to Harrison Ford while they were shooting Ford's cameo for "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" back in 1993, Ford declined to appear in anything involving flying saucers. Spielberg himself did not want to revisit alien terrain either, having directed "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T" as two notable flicks dealing with an alien intelligence. Years passed, different writers wrote a few drafts (including Young Indy scribe Frank Darabont) and, finally, after much anticipation and speculation, the fourth Indiana Jones movie became a reality in January of 2007. Lucas made the announcement that filming was scheduled for June 18th, 2007 for a May 2008 release.

Rumors circulated like wildfire. An early one was that the film would begin with an atomic explosion. Later in July of 2007, someone spotted Karen Allen at a Borders bookstore in Hawaii, the much heralded secret that was meant to be kept as such until the day the film opened. Another was that Shia LaBeouf was going to play Indy's son. Those turned out to be true. Some false truths were that John Hurt was going to be playing Abner Ravenwood, Marion's father who died, according to a line of dialogue from "Raiders." Another one was that the Ark of the Covenant was instrumental in the plot, which it was not. Yet another wild rumor was that Clint Eastwood would be appearing as a general. When Shia LaBeouf announced at the MTV Movie Awards the title of the film, the rumors of what artifact would be pursued quieted down and became known - it would be a crystal skull.

May of 2008 saw the release of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," first at a Cannes Film Festival premiere that caused some mild praise and some mild negativity and then its U.S. premiere. The sharp critical knives were out in full force in what has become the most hotly debated and critically reviled sequel in the Indy saga (more appropriately, the most critically reviled sequel in history, aside from Lucas' own "Star Wars" prequels). So keep reading and let us dissect the complaints, the truths, the half-truths from fans and non-fans, and the development of the characters and what actually transpired in the fourth Indiana Jones movie. 
A Nuclear Jones Family Unit (Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Karen Allen)

I. Complaints from Indiana Jones fans

The superficial complaints came out in full force from the Indy fans. Though there have been ruminating questions about plot and character, they came up empty because they were looking at them in the wrong context; more on that later. The futile fan complaints were as follows: Too many unbelievable stunts, including the rubber tree where a DUKW vehicle safely rides out into the water by literally riding against the tree; one too many Amazonian waterfalls; an atomic blast that Indy survives by hiding in a fridge, and a sword duel on two parallel vehicles. I am not disagreeing that the stunts are more unbelievable or cartoonish than before. As a matter of fact, they approach the cartoonishness of "Temple of Doom." The rubber tree was fun to watch despite being so improbable, and aren't Indiana Jones chases and stunts supposed to be fun? It is just as improbable as "Temple of Doom's" inflatable raft that falls from a plane and rests squarely and safely on a rocky mountain and then falls a few hundred feet into a waterfall where the heroes survive without drowning. The heroes in "Crystal Skull" ride their DUKW vehicle through three waterfalls! Yep, one too many that ends with Marion holding a steering wheel on land while hysterically laughing and Indy and the others drenched, though they miraculously get dry on land fairly quickly.
Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood

Indy: "That can't be good." 

The atomic blast left many fans irate, so irate that the term "Nuked the Fridge" was coined (a phrase paralleling "Jump the Shark"). Indiana Jones is in Doomtown, a Nevada nuclear testing site where a nuclear bomb is about to be dropped within fifteen seconds. Indy scrambles inside a house to find shelter and decides the safest place is the inside of a lead-lined fridge. The blast occurs sending the fridge several miles into the air and Indy gets out with barely a scratch. Improbable? Of course (and this was Spielberg's idea, not Lucas’). Intense and nerve-wracking? Naturally. In the past, Indiana Jones' bloodcurlingly dangerous perils involved outrunning rolling boulders; near impalement in a collapsing spike chamber; an out-of-control careening mining cart; being dragged under a truck; narrowly escaping collapsing walls and poisonous darts, and much more. None of these events are anything that (I'd hope) a human being would ever encounter. An atomic blast is something people have suffered or died from (Hiroshima, for one) and so the fact that Indy is stuck in a very real-life situation that is shown very realistically (sans the fridge) may have been too much for some audiences (in Japan, many patrons were understandably disturbed and ran out of the theater). The iconic moment where he stares at this mushroom cloud is not unlike eerie actual footage of U.S. soldiers walking towards nuclear fallout at actual testing sites. Ford himself said that there were scenes that would make an audience uncomfortable. I am sure he was talking about this one. But would the fans have preferred that Indy perish in this scene? What other way would he have survived it if not inside a fridge? (There is a brief shot of that red coupe but I doubt that the ignition works). The other complaint from fans is that surviving such a blast makes Indy superheroic, invulnerable and anything else he endures afterwards is anticlimactic. True but Indiana Jones is meant to survive, to sidestep danger because he always does. Is the scene too cartoonish? Absolutely, but do consider what the scene is ultimately about. Indiana Jones looks out of place in this brightly colored suburban replica. He is not comfortable with the notion of suburbia (the one shot that shows his house in a later scene looks like a mansion) and he is not part of that, pardon the pun, nuclear family unit (though he is by the end of the film). The scene itself takes on another dimension in Spielberg's own past use of suburbia - Spielberg demolishes it and the fact that mannequins are seen standing around waiting for the inevitable gives the film a criticism of placid complacency. It is a blazingly original contrivance for Indy to be stuck in such a predicament, and it is both disturbing, creepy and entertaining (the fridge flying over the Army car is creepily funny). So Indy escaping almost certain death in a fridge is a metaphor, I believe, for his future with Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). It will be a rocky ride but he will survive it. Or will he? I guess we will find out in the fifth Indiana Jones adventure if it ever becomes a reality.

The hot-rod drag race has been criticized by fans to be too long and serving no purpose. It is a race that precedes Doomtown and it is not just an homage to Lucas's own "American Graffiti." In the drag race scene, a 1932 Ford car model is seen along a desert field (echoes of "Last Crusade"s opening prologue in a slightly similar setting) with some unruly teenagers who are driving at rapid speeds. They get on the main road and try to get the Army car to race them. Mutt Williams is someone that might have hung out with this crowd, thus these "Stand By Me"-teens foreshadow the later introduction of the greaser and high-school dropout Mutt. These teens are unaware that Indiana Jones is inside the trunk of that Army vehicle and are also unaware the drivers are not actual Army officers. This crowd is not seen again but they do pinpoint to the interaction of preppy teens and greasers in the later malt shop scene. Significantly, Indy is also a little out of place in the later malt shop scene, a place for presumably greasers and university students (and the two Spalko men are also out of place, the "bricks who didn't come for the milk shakes.") When Indy runs out of the malt shop, he hops on Mutt's motorcycle and they try to evade the bricks. It is almost a reprise of the hot-rod chase, except this is a real Indiana Jones movie chase that involves shocked streetcar onlookers and students protesting with anti-Communist propaganda signs.

As for the sword duel (which is better executed than any of the sword duels in Spielberg's dull and gloomy "Hook"), it is classic Indiana Jones to me. Sure, it is on two vehicles with Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) and Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) swordfighting on two parallel roads. But it is inventively shot and edited (yes, there are those branches that keep striking Mutt in the groin and, yes, there is that Elvis monkey). The Tarzan-like Mutt is seen swinging from vine after vine to catch up with Indy and eventually safely lands on Indy's vehicle. So what? We are watching Indiana Jones here, not the early versions of "King Solomon's Mines." Do these "improbable" stunts veer from even some of the implausibilities of the first three Indy flicks? A little, but not enough to make one think "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was the "Taxi Driver" of action-adventure movies. "Raiders" is not even the "Gunga Din" of adventure movies, it is more on the level of the Flash Gordon, Zorro, Lone Ranger and Perils of Pauline serial-type movies. A Youtube user, who will remain anonymous, said that "Raiders" was a very realistic movie. I hate to think that the youth of today see these movies as credible and realistic.

Though unmentioned by Spielberg or Lucas as intended homages, the nuked fridge bit seems to have been cribbed from 1963's very dramatic "Ladybug Ladybug" where a young girl seeks shelter in an abandoned fridge from a possible nuclear bomb blast. There is also a dose of "The Atomic Kid," a Mickey Rooney comedy flick where Rooney is relatively unscathed after being in a house that is demolished during a nuclear test. There is also a passing resemblance to the alternate "Back to the Future" scenario with its just released storyboards on DVD that detail the alternate manner by which Marty McFly's Delorean heads back to the future - by way of an atomic explosion in a nuclear testing site with a suburban replica and mannequins! And let us not forget that Marty was initially going to time travel in a refrigerator! Coincidence?

Keep in mind that the Indiana Jones movies are a slight wink and slight send-up of the B-movies and B-movie serials of the past - they are not meant to be taken seriously. The whole notion of Indiana Jones is exaggeration, not a template of real-life. Indy is a world-renown archaeologist and professor who packs a gun and a bullwhip when pursuing precious treasures out in the field. Does this remind you of any actual archaeologists? Do they encounter 700-year-old knights, arks that emit the Wrath of God, glowing stones of Sankara, a Holy Grail that can cure a bullet wound, drink poison and jump out the window of a building with a handy rolling gong, and initiate light traps that trigger spiked corpses? More than likely, real archaeologists spend time digging and reading than actually finding any precious treasure and they are not setting out to shoot nefarious villains. Maybe an "interdimensional being" that happens to be an artifact-collecting alien inside a flying saucer that is a portal to the "space between spaces" and is literally inside a temple isn't so outside the realm of the Indy universe. Even Indy sees the aliens as archaeologists, considering the collection of golden artifacts next to their crystal chamber. Fantasist author Harlan Ellison once wrote a brief word on "Raiders" in "Screen Flights, Screen Fantasies" stating "Raiders" as "marginal as sf but it should not be excluded on grounds of excellence."

Don't believe the winking? Look at Indy shooting the Cairo swordsman in "Raiders" - the scene has the swordsman showing his tricks and Indy just shoots him. It gets a big laugh from the most obvious gag in the world. "Temple of Doom" has the same scene but with two swordsmen and Indy has no gun. Indy shoots three Nazis at once in "Last Crusade." These are not scenes you would have seen in the serials of yesteryear. The punches are exaggerated and the hero never truly ever loses his hat. He survives every perilous situation yet Harrison Ford shows Indy's vulnerability brilliantly, making us think that he might not survive. That is why the first major peril Indy had in "Raiders" - where the wall compresses while Indy is trying to get a foot hold so he doesn't slip into an abyss - works so damn well because he makes us want to grab onto our seats yet we still don't know who this guy is or why we should root for him to survive. In "Crystal Skull" we expect to root for him. He has a priceless close-up when he exits the fried, blacked-out fridge, exasperated and exhausted and shown in a dusty silhouette against a mushroom cloud. This is pure Indy, despite not having a scratch or a broken bone, and pure indication of being ushered into a new era. It isn't meant to be seen as an indestructible Indy but a formidable hero who can withstand an atomic blast but still suffers bruises and a bloody lip when fighting a hulking Soviet agent. Once again, none of this is meant to be an evocation of a real life.

II. Evolution of Indy's character - oh, no, he doesn't shoot anyone!

Another complaint from fans was the fact that Indiana Jones in "Crystal Skull" never fires his gun. In one scene at a Peruvian cemetery, Indy almost fires his gun at one of the guards (though he does an old Bugs Bunny trick by blowing into the opposite end of a blowgun and kills a guard). In the Area 51 prologue, Indy is not seen with a gun or a holster, only his trusty bullwhip that had been confiscated by the Soviets. Though he carries a gun for the rest of the film, he never has to use it or feel the need to. He uses his fists, his wits and his lethal whip when necessary, and he threatens Spalko with a rifle - this makes him tougher. He also uses an RPG on a jungle cutter with great aim (not unlike the finale of "Raiders," where Indy threatens to blow up the Ark with a bazooka). Why? I don't think it is just Spielberg and Lucas resorting to the revisions of their own iconic films, most damagingly 2002's alternate and bizarre cut of Spielberg's "E.T" with federal agents carrying walkie-talkies instead of guns, and Lucas's own character reversal of Han shooting Greedo first in 1997's revision of "Star Wars." Perhaps it is more likely that Spielberg and Lucas have thought very closely about the end of "Last Crusade." If you recall, Indy and his father, Dr. Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery), are inside the Grail temple where the Holy Grail is held and guarded by that 700-year-old knight. The grail's removal from the temple prevents immortality from those seeking it. The Grail is almost lost until Indy practically has it in his hand. His father tells him to "let it go." So a family unit is more important than a treasure that is not meant for human hands (The late film critic Gene Siskel astutely mentioned this fact). Earlier in the film, Senior Jones tries to use a machine gun and fails, succeeds in using a tank gun, and cleverly quotes the monarch Charlemagne when using an umbrella to make the geese fly in the direction of a Nazi warplane. So why are people upset when the inevitable solution for a fourth film would be that Indy would adopt his father's behavior in battling villainy, expect to be named "Henry," and settle down with Marion and berate Mutt for not finishing school. This foolhardy notion that Indy is a bloodthirsty, jingoistic hero along the lines of John Rambo is to forget that he did not fire his pistol as often as people think in this series (Don't forget that "Temple of Doom" had Indy with no gun aside from the opening teaser). Indy is cinematically closer to the heroes of 50's B-movies, such as "The Secret of the Incas," 'Valley of the Kings" or "The Naked Jungle" where firing a gun was not always a necessity in proving a hero's worth.

Indy has evolved, though he is still a master of the whip and with his fists ("You're pretty good in a fight," quips Mutt). Indy's got jungle smarts, except when sinking in a quicksand pit, is still deathly afraid of snakes but he can decipher clues, hieroglyphics and symbols with ease. In a visual nod to the Howard Hawks epic "Land of the Pharaohs," Indy and company use rocks to burst the insides of an obelisk with sand poring out of its holes. The man has still got it. Yes, he is part of a team (Marion, Mutt and Oxley) and although older and wiser, he is still too trusting of greedy sidekicks such as Mac who are in it only for the money, depending on who has the green. The boozing Mac (Ray Winstone) is not a man of principle or political ideology and, though he has fought the Reds with Indy on many missions, he just wants the gold. It is sort of a twist on what Indiana Jones used to be except that in "Raiders," he wanted the gold fertility idol but only to place it in a museum (same with the Ark of the Covenant). In "Temple of Doom" (set one year before "Raiders"), he is a different kind of Indy, one who barters the ashes of a dead emperor in exchange for a precious diamond. At the end of that film, he returns the Sankara Stones to restore life to an Indian village. In "Last Crusade," he manages to obtain an artifact for once, the Cross of Coronado, the one he pursued in his very first adventure as a Boy Scout. It is placed in a museum but the Holy Grail looks like any carpenter cup that is not meant to be taken to any university. So with "Crystal Skull," Indy has found other artifacts that decorate his classroom and his illustrious home but he doesn't seem to be in the business of locating relics anymore (there is some ambiguous business about "digging in the dirt in Mexico" revealing to be pieces of pottery or whatever). Surely he could have helped himself to the skull itself or any of the treasures in the alien throne room of Akator, but he is not the same Indy he once was. As in "Temple of Doom" and technically "Last Crusade," he returns the crystal skull to Akator which is placed on the headless body of a crystal skeleton by Spalko ("I want to know everything!"). What Indiana Jones has accomplished in this 4-part saga is in restoring his topsy-turvy relationship to Marion, gaining a son he never knew he had, and developing a mutual respect for his bookworm of a father. As Indy made claim in "Last Crusade":

"I didn't come for the cup of Christ, I came to find my father."

Indy no longer has aspirations of taking treasures from third-world countries or other foreign lands to put in a museum or sell them to the highest bidder - he is a responsible archaeologist. Well, to a point, when you consider he ruins rather than preserves sacred grounds, or carelessly tosses bones from skeletons in catacombs to make a torch as he does in "Last Crusade."

III. A mildly flawed effort, like the others

Let's be clear: there are minor flaws in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Though I speak humbly as both an Indiana Jones movie fan (not of the numerous books or Young Indy TV series) and as a film critic, I have to make clear there are minor disturbances in the Indy Crystal Skull Force.

Exhibit A: Marion Ravenwood's relationship to Indy is a little undernourished.

With the first film, we understood she was keen on Indy, hated snakes, was deflowered by the fedora man when she was young, and her father (Abner Ravenwood) had hated Indy as much as she did. We also observed a woman who can drink any man under the table, and she could own her own bar in the frozen tundra of Nepal. With "Crystal Skull," we know she has a son, Mutt, who is also Indy's son. She also got involved in some business with Oxley in Peru, though why she put herself in danger for Ox is tough to say considering there is no presumed romantic entanglement between Ox and Marion. Did Marion feel she had the smarts for being in the field to help Ox considering her past experience with Indy? Possibly, but this plot thread is left hanging a bit. Though Indy feels connected to Marion and they have a mutual understanding that doesn't need dialogue, Marion's past between 1936 and 1957 is far too unclear (we learn that she married an RAF pilot who had passed on). And do consider an odd moment in the wedding finale with Indy and Marion exchanging vows. When Indy and Marion kiss (Marion gives the bouquet to the minister before the smooch - a nice Spielberg touch), Mutt looks a little disturbed and the look is not followed through in the master shots of the chapel room. Hmmm.

Exhibit B: The mad Oxley in "Apocalypse Now" mode.

We do learn that Oxley used to read archaeological info about the Crystal Skull to Mutt when Mutt was a tot, and it put Mutt to sleep. We also learn Oxley and Indy were once friends. But this is a character that could've been left to the imagination, not unlike the unseen Abner Ravenwood in "Raiders." John Hurt is a titanic presence on screen but he is not used well by Spielberg, which is surprising considering how well Spielberg adapted the equally titanic Sean Connery to "Last Crusade." When Oxley is seen dancing and laughing by the fire with the Russians, it looks fake. Something about this character frustrates me and John Hurt is never given a chance to shine (perhaps so he wouldn't upstage Ford or LaBeouf).

Exhibit C: "They are a hive mind, of separate bodies but of a single mentality."

The damn crystal skull(s). I think this makes for a great MacGuffin but the mythology behind the 13 skulls leaves me befuddled. One is missing, which Oxley does find and hides, but then it doesn't mean there are thirteen aliens. All thirteen merge after the missing head is re-attached, forming one alien being (interdimensional being, in point of fact). And the one that crash landed and died at Area 51 had bones made of crystal, but is he the one that got away and is he part of the 13 crystal skeletons? Actually, no, it seems when Spalko points out that two other aliens crashed in the Soviet Union. I don't look for logic in an Indiana Jones flick (I always thought all three Sankara stones in "Temple of Doom" were needed to restore life to a village when apparently one was enough) but this mythology does give one pause. Supposedly, the legend has it that the aliens taught the Ughba tribe about irrigation, farming and so on. Okay but if all that is true, why on earth does Irina Spalko need that dead alien at Area 51 (and how does she get it past customs to bring it all the way to Peru?) The mind boggles.

(When the skeletons of the Inter-Dimensional beings are coming together as one, only 11 of the skeletons are shown combining with the first. This makes 12; in previous scenes it is stated that there are 13 of these creatures, these crystal skeletons. Which thus, leaves us all to ponder the question: What happened to the 13th alien?)

IV: Why is "Crystal Skull" close to being the best sequel in the series (equal to the Last Crusade)

And now for the reasons why I love "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Spielberg is an expert at making images leap off the screen, and stages physical action more elegantly and intensely than any other film director. The opening car chase scenes in the warehouse that lead to the rocket sled firing off at nerve-wracking speeds while a countdown display is shown is Spielberg at his most escapist. Though there is clearly CGI in the jungle chase between the DUKW vehicle and numerous other jeeps, it still makes one's jaw drop. There are a lot of characters jumping in and out of same vehicles like a Buster Keaton chase, culminating in Shia's Mutt accidentally grabbing a vine as he is lifted a few hundred feet up in the trees with monkeys. The references, from "Naked Jungle's" creepy fire, flesh-eating ants to a swinging Tarzan, are a pure delight and make one "giddy as a schoolboy." Almost as good is the motorcycle and car chase through university streets (a first for the series in that Indy often travels abroad before getting into trouble - this time, it starts on his home turf), which begins with a malt shop for greasers and punching "Joe College" and ends inside a library where a student (Chester Hanks, Tom Hanks' son) asks Indy a question (this is after Indy has already been dismissed by the university for alleged ties to the Reds but, again, I don't look for logic in these movies). This scene mimics the genial tone of "Last Crusade," minus the slapstick. Though the movie is technically shorter on the action quotient than previous entries, it is still enough for me to be satisfied. Spielberg already slowed down the action in "Last Crusade" by making it more personal with the father-son reunion - if you want the ghoulish and goosebump intensity of "Raiders" or "Temple of Doom," you won't find as much of it in "Last Crusade" or "Crystal Skull." Still, "Crystal Skull" is entertaining enough without resorting to one last-minute hairbreadth escape or action sequence after another. Spielberg has already proven he could do that and Indy's character has gone through some changes since "Last Crusade." Escapism defines the series and Indy gets into enough trouble for a man in his late fifties than most other action-adventure heroes in the past. Most of the central action is centered on the opening teaser prologue (the longest in the series) to a chase before Indy and Mutt go packing to Peru, to the jeeps and DUKW vehicles chases before entering the temple in the last third.

Spielberg is also a master at sublime restraint, particularly the conversation inside Indy's mansion between Indy and Dean Stanforth (Jim Broadbent). I've noticed that using champagne and/or wine glasses in his films delivers the subtlety and grace that his scenes need to breathe and sparkle (1997's "The Lost World" begins with champagne being poured into glasses as well, and "Last Crusade" has a fitting moment as well between Indy and the introduction of the traitorous millionaire, Walter Donovan). Spielberg also has his jollies with a bit of unrestraint, particularly Marion and Indy's banter in the Soviet truck where even the tough-as-nails Soviet soldier Dovchenko (Igor Jijikine) tells them, "Oh, for the love of God! Shut the hell up!" Some of this is quite similar to the argument between Indy and his father over the diary while having Nazis aiming guns at them.

"Crystal Skull" has got all the hallmarks of the classic Indy adventures. It has a forbidden treasure (the skull); witty chase scenes on motorbike, jeep and DUKW vehicles; a superb villain, Irina Spalko, who wants to know everything at any cost, even her own life; a lot more emphasis on archaeological backgrounds; feisty cemetery guards with skull masks; a Peruvian warrior tribe armed with dangerous slingshots; a grand finish where a pyramid and obelisk crumble; pesky fire ants and big scorpions are the new creepy crawlies (prairie dogs simply show up and are amazed at a rocket sled zooming past them). What is new in the Indy universe is that the film ends with a wedding; has sci-fi elements like a UFO ship and aliens; an opening prologue that does not reference a different, unrelated quest; Indy having won several unseen war medals; a chase scene on university grounds; a more emphasized political climate centering around Communism where Indy is accused of being a Communist and loses his job; Indy in a coffee shop; an atomic blast; a refrigerator; blood of insects, water droplets and dusty bowls splatter on the camera lens, and Indy is made Dean of Students at the end. Also, the villains are more sinister. Consider the opening Area 51 sequence where Indy is held by Soviet guards while interrogated by Spalko - if you listen closely, you can hear machine gun fire in the background. These Soviets practically kill every Army official on base. This is repeated with a later scene in Peru where the Ughba tribal warriors are all killed by Spalko's men. These Soviets mean business and I do not recall anything as sinister or insidiously evil in the past Indy flicks. We did have threatening Nazis in "Raiders" and "Last Crusade," though the most violent scene where Nazis shoot to kill was in "Last Crusade" where they engage in a mountainous shoot-out with the Brothers of the Cruciform Sword. Still, we never did see a landscape with littered, bullet-riddled corpses in previous Indy entries.

As a film critic, I can't help but notice that "Crystal Skull" is full of the expected loopholes, plot incongruities and lapses in proper geographical backgrounds, but so were the previous entries. They are hardly enough to deter from the crowd-pleasing spectacle itself. Ford is in fine form delivering terrific humorous lines with aplomb - he hasn't lost the twinkle in his eye as Indy nor has he lost the rapport with his finest leading lady ever, Marion. Speaking of Marion (sans smoking and drinking in this installment), Karen Allen is also in good form and her giddiness (her smile at Indy's dismissal of past flames - "They weren't you, honey") is effectively nostalgic and romantic at the same time (you do get the feeling that this pair need to be together). Shia LaBeouf is a boyish, tough-minded little guy who possesses the resourcefulness of his father and is impressed with Indy's demeanor ("You're a teacher?") - he is a likable presence on screen despite the ridicule of his casting by so many fans. Cate Blanchett is deliciously good as Stalin's fair-haired soldier and colonel, and her final scenes where she is fascinated and startled by the crystal skeletons and their power is exceedingly scary and eerie to watch. There is also a nice reflective touch from the film's opening atomic bomb sirens - when the skull is re-attached, we hear ominous, similar-sounding sirens in another most forbidden place.

"Raiders" was a darkly humorous action-adventure movie with the most intense escapist cliffhangers in history - it was a new kind of action-adventure film that possessed the Spielberg intensity of "Jaws." "Temple of Doom" was a giddy funhouse horror flick with just as many cliffhangers, though the accent was on graphic violence and voodoo magic - it is possibly the most exhausting action-adventure film ever made with one witty, imaginative cliffhanger after another. "Last Crusade" was an innocent redux of "Raiders" disguised as a personal, humanized story of Indy rediscovering his father and finding himself. "Crystal Skull" is a sinister, occasionally solemn film with many bright, awesomely staged Buster Keaton-ish stunts and action scenes washed in political paranoia. Don't forget that the film was released in 2008 when George Bush, Jr. was still President of the U.S. and so it can't be an accident that writer David Koepp gives the 1950's FBI agents a dose of Bush paranoia:

"Don't throw your war record at us, we all served."
Indy's rebuttal: "Really? What side were you on?"

For the first time in the series, Indiana Jones' character and past affiliations are put under a microscope. The fact that he is made Dean of Students at the end and settles down with Marion and Mutt doesn't mean the FBI will not continue keeping a close eye on him. The fans missed a lot. They expected just another glorious Indiana Jones adventure with great exotic locales, lots of eye-popping, escapist cliffhanger stunts and a cool artifact, completely forgetting the evolution of Indy's character. Clearly, there is more to "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" than those crystal skull eyes. Marion: "Look, Indy. Look at those eyes" (a nice reversal of "Raiders" finale where she was told not to look). Look deeper.


Sunday, May 27, 2012

Science will defeat the Gods!

HERCULES (1983)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
When I was 12, I saw "Hercules" in theaters and was ecstatic about seeing it. I was a fan of Lou Ferrigno (having met him in Canada at a monster truck show where he was signing autographs), so seeing him as Hercules was a treat. That is until I sat in my theater seat and witnessed the film itself, a highly unintelligible, meandering and godawful treatment of one of the strongest Greek mythological heroes of all time. Having seen it again recently, I certainly was not bored by. It is still godawful but it has a breezy spirit to it. It is not "Clash of the Titans," which it rips off shamelessly, but it is has enough action and questionable moments  to warrant a viewing.

So Hercules was created by Zeus as some sort of ball of light that floats to Earth and becomes a baby. The baby...ugh, must I go on? Let us say that baby Hercules kills two giant serpents by crushing them with his hands as if the serpents were made of Doritos. Some magical sword is stolen. We get a fetching Sybil Danning as Ariana, daughter of the the evil wizard King Minos (William Berger); a sorceress whose curse is lifted from looking like a crone out of "Princess Bride"; and a certain Princess Cassiopeia (Ingrid Anderson) who reveals her complete face by lifting her veil for the Strongest Man after he managed to clean the stables with the help of a raging river! (this is actually based on one of Hercules' Herculean feats). And we get a chariot that is fastened to a rock by a sorceress, who also has a thing for Hercules. A giant bear is thrown into space! Zeus lives on the moon instead of Mount Olympus. And I must not forget the giant robot creatures that Hercules must kill. And maybe mythology scholars will stop reading after I stated that Hercules was one of the strongest Greek heroes of all time, or is it Roman? Hercules is the Roman name for the Greek demigod, Heracles. Okay, myth lesson over. I mean, we are talking about a movie where a giant bear is thrown into space where it becomes a constellation!!! Ursa Major?

Basically, the movie is structured as a series of endurance tests that Hercules must pass (at one point, he even turns into a giant to create two continents). It is pure addle-brained hokum with one of the longest voice-over narrated openings ever (4 minutes that feels like 15). Lou Ferrigno has got the build for Hercules and the personality, sans the voice that was dubbed. The emotional range that Ferrigno must show after the death of his parents and the death of many others is nil. He is better at showing his rage during his feats of strength. Some of the supporting cast is lively and some are wooden (the actor playing Zeus is hardly the stuff that gods are made of) Sybil Danning has too few scenes (and disappointingly shares only one scene with the Hulk, er, Hercules), and Ingrid Anderson looks too pretty especially when she is ready to be sacrificed. "Hercules" is a rotten film with the most rudimentary special-effects composed with such bad timing and poor, mismatched lighting schemes that you can't help but laugh. It is entertaining enough which qualifies it as a good bad movie, but this movie is hardly the stuff that legends or Steve Reeves are made of. 

Friday, May 25, 2012

Didn't the Dark Knight already rise?

Didn't the Dark Knight already Rise? 
By Jerry Saravia

Maybe I am in the minority but I can't imagine what can be done that is as intoxicating or as epic as "The Dark Knight." In the closing scenes of "The Dark Knight," Joker (Heath Ledger) makes mincemeat out of Batman (Christian Bale) verbally, not physically. And Gotham City had its doubts about that flying bat man as well. At the end of the picture, the nocturnal hero flees in his Batbike and we were left with one of the most intriguing finales of any superhero movie ever. It was intriguing enough that director Christopher Nolan and most fans had their doubts that a third film should even exist (and I sensed an implied doubt about a third film after the premature death of Heath Ledger). How can you beat the Joker for pure malice, nastiness and destruction?
Thomas Hardy as Bane
Of course, money talks in Hollywood and Chris Nolan is again directing the third and final chapter in his revisionist Batman trilogy. Bane is the villain (previously seen in "Batman and Robin"), wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask (it comes equipped with an analgesic gas to relieve pain) that proves to make his dialogue sound like gibberish (this will be cleared up apparently in the movie). Catwoman is also back, played by the eternally boring actress, Anne Hathaway (sorry film fans but I have not had the pleasure of seeing her Academy-Award nominated work in "Rachel Getting Married", though she was quite effective in Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland"). Christian Bale is naturally back, whose own Batman and Bruce Wayne characters were reduced to second fiddle next to the Joker in the last picture (Of course, that might be by design.) Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox and Michael Caine as the butler, Alfred, also return.

But can this third chapter really thrill people much and be a match for the first two? I sense that a big NO is in order. I've seen the trailer and it looks more like a demented sequel to "The Departed" than anything remotely like Batman. Bane and his gang look like terrorists (perhaps, again, by design) and there is some Occupy Gotham subplot that sounds silly. Hathaway's Catwoman looks just as witless as Halle Berry's version. Gone is the seductively sleazy trappings of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman from twenty years ago.  By the way, Pfeiffer was supposed to have her own "Catwoman" flick and it happened, but with the far less physically dominating presence of Halle Berry cast instead.
Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman
Anne Hathaway as Catwoman

I know, I know, I shouldn't judge a movie by the sheer ineptitude of a trailer ("Shutter Island's" icky horror movie trailer has no similarity to the actual movie). But I am not worked up or anticipating this sequel. It seems that Nolan should've ended it with the emasculation and impotence of Batman in "The Dark Knight." This is true of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," which ended the Terminator saga beautifully with no open-endedness. "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" was a schlocky yet diverting sequel, more like an unnecessary and repetitive footnote that negated part 2. I guess I don't want a Batman movie to be too political and too police procedural-like (heaven knows, there is enough of that on television alone). A Batman movie should be fun and energetic, just like "Batman Begins" or even Tim Burton's own 1989 flick. "The Dark Knight" was a downer and purposely so, with many invigorating scenes and first-class acting and lots of subtle political overtones. It was epic fun and blackly witty and it closed those two flicks with an ambiguous note. I will probably see "Dark Knight Rises" at some point and hope I am wrong, but DC Comics's strangest hero seems to be occupying Chris Matthew's "Hardball" more than DC Comics.

The Dark Joker

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)
 Reviewed by Jerry Saravia 
(Originally written in 2008)

"Batman Begins" was the best Batman film ever made, with a clear emphasis on who Batman and was and the dual identity of its nocturnal hero and his wealthy playboy counterpart. "The Dark Knight" has different concerns and strengths and it is probably as good as "Batman Begins" if it were not for a little less emphasis on Batman/Bruce Wayne than I would have liked.

Christian Bale is once again the Batman and Bruce Wayne, this time sensing that his days as a crime-fighting hero are possibly numbered. In the truly effective opening sequence, we see a bank robbery with its robbers wearing ugly clown masks and betraying each other by killing each other (their escape, hosted by the Joker, is nifty). Batman finds that his old foe, Scarecrow, and others are trying to do Batman's work, to no avail. A gray-haired crime lord (Eric Roberts) seems to have the entire city of Gotham on his payroll, but he faces a new threat - a malevolent, ugly freak with a white plastered face and a bloody smile, the Joker (played by the late Heath Ledger). This Joker is not a Jack Nicholson or a Cesar Romero impersonation - he is a tongue-flipping sociopath who thrives on chaos and destruction. He is not really witty and he's unclean, unsafe and a sheer monster who freely kills a gangster by impaling his head with a pencil. This man is so freakish, so nasty, so inhuman that you'd swear it was someone else under the makeup and not the handsome, stoic Heath Ledger. Yet Ledger lends a shred of wit to it. I love the moment when he confronts the city's gangsters and says, "Here is my card," as he flings a Joker card at them.

What can Batman and ambitious D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and the sensitive police commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) do to fight this anarchic personality? Not much. The corruption of Gotham City and the investigation on Batman's secret identity (also part of the Joker's ploy in exchange for ending his random killings) is given the kind of treatment you might expect in a Sidney Lumet picture or even "The Departed." You also get the feeling that Batman is not much use anymore, and that Bruce Wayne knows it since the public at large see him as a vigilante. Even Alfred sees that the world is changing with his prophetic words, "Some men just want to see the world burn."

My major quibble is that writer-director Christopher Nolan has given us the same conflicted Batman that we saw in "Begins" yet our batty hero is overpowered by the Joker (a similar fault lied with Tim Burton's original "Batman"). Heath Ledger gives us such a tremendously eerie and transformatively scary Joker that you can't help but feel that he has defeated Batman from the moment he first appears on screen. Batman, to an extent, is mostly on the sidelines as a crime- fighting hero who becomes more anti-heroic by the end of the film. Though that is Nolan's point since the character is a noirish creation where good and evil don't quite exist, it serves as a detriment, a slight detriment but a detriment nonetheless. Also Bruce Wayne's relationship to Rachel Dawes, the assistant D.A. (Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes), is given such short-shrift that unless you've seen "Batman Begins," you'll have no idea why they even speak to each other.

The focus is on the righteous Harvey Dent, who becomes Two-Face, the kind of freak that Batman and the Joker have become. This shift on character is fascinating but he is eclipsed by the Joker. In fact, let me reiterate, everyone in this movie is eclipsed by the Joker. Every scene with Ledger imbues a darkness that is unmistakably noirish and heavier than perhaps the filmmakers even intended. I still wanted more scenes between Bruce Wayne and his dutiful servant, Alfred (the always magnetic Michael Caine), and the weapons and gadgets expert, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman).

Holy Criticisms, do I have anything positive to say besides Heath Ledger's performance? Of course, if you have read the opening paragraph, I clearly state that "The Dark Knight" is as good as "Batman Begins" but not superior (though this is a superior superhero movie). In terms of the scale of action and the choreography and some death-defying stunts, "The Dark Knight" is exquisitely and electrifyingly made. It is a thrill ride with a moral compass that is strikingly complex on the level of an epic tragedy. I still like the growling Batman and that awesome Batbike that travels at supersonic speeds (the Batmobile is still a marvel to watch). There are good performances and superb writing (quite a bit of a dialogue for a movie of this type) and many memorable lines of dialogue, especially by the "Why So Serious" Joker. I just miss seeing a development of Batman/Bruce Wayne's character - he left a lasting impression at the end of the first movie and I still like to know more about the brooding Batman. In this movie, the Joker takes center stage and gives you nightmares. Essentially, this is "The Dark Joker." A great movie, just not the one I was expecting.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Hughes at his zaniest

WEIRD SCIENCE (1985)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
 "Weird Science" is the zaniest film to come out of director John Hughes's oeuvre. It is the sole teen film of his containing sci-fi and fantasy elements that are ground up and delivered with tasteful and tasteless comedy situations. It is not as tasteless or (and I do say that with all due respect to Mr. Hughes) as mean-spirited as "Sixteen Candles" nor is it as revealing about high school teenage life as "The Breakfast Club" (his best picture). But there is a core of sensitivity and something genial about "Weird Science" despite having a premise that should be dirtier and tasteless than it is.

Anthony Michael Hall and Ian Mitchell-Smith play the two prototypical teen nerds, Gary and Wyatt, who have nothing better to do on a Friday night than watch a colorized version of 1931's "Frankenstein" (not a bad idea in actuality). While watching the film, Gary summons the spirit of Colin Clive's Dr. Frankenstein in his own mind and comes up with an idea: with Wyatt's supercomputer PC ("Did it come with a toaster, too?") they decide to create their ideal woman. They manage to do this by hacking into a government computer, applying electrodes to a Barbie doll and then, after a red sky appears with thunderbolts striking and causing much damage to the house, Kelly LeBrock appears. "So what do you boys want to do first?" Apparently, Gary and Wyatt want to shower with her while still wearing their pants.

The boys call her Lisa, and Lisa takes them out on the town to a Chicago bar where this triad is not the ideal clientele. Then we get a mall sequence where Robert Rusler and Robert Downey, Jr. play two different teens males who harass the boys yet ogle at the sight of Lisa. Naturally, the film ends with a house party that outdoes "Sixteen Candles" for gross negligence of furniture, closets, and any other fixtures including tossing a piano out of a chimney (or was it the other way around)! The mutants from "Road Warrior" and "The Hills Have Eyes" show up, and Wyatt's grandparents are kept in suspended animation! Oh, lets us not forget the girls, including Judie Aronson and Suzanne Snyder as the two teen girls whom Gary and Wyatt are romantically interested in. And I can't exclude a brief cameo by Jill Whitlow as a perfume salesgirl who puts down the two nerds with sublime restraint ("Are you two getting something for your MOM?")

"Weird Science" is fun, engaging, loose, and occasionally quite gross (Bill Paxton as a toad will have you puking, but not with laughter). Anthony Michael Hall, though, steals the show with his high-energy comic spirit and he made me laugh any time he gapes in close-up. Ian-Mitchell Smith plays the straight man to the chaos of Anthony Michael Hall's cartoonish character and the exaggeration of almost anything else that transpires around them. But I wonder why is it that Lisa is more interested in helping the teenagers than having sex with them, hence the premise of this movie (I know, the boys gave her a brain with the help of Einstein's photo). Hard to say if Gary or Wyatt ever actually participate in anything sexual - the reason they conjured her up in the first place - since Hughes leaves it to the imagination. The lesson seems to be that the boys need to learn to grow up and "mingle." It is almost as if a soft-core porn comedy was transpiring and somebody short-circuited it to change it into a riotous John Hughes teen comedy with great special-effects. I loved the movie in 1985 and I do now, but I am unclear of Hughes's intentions.

Monday, May 21, 2012

The Shock 'Em, Nuke 'Em, Animal-Lovin' Troma Girl (An Interview with Leesa Rowland)

The Shock 'Em, Nuke 'Em, Animal Lovin' Troma Girl (An Interview with Leesa Rowland)
By Jerry Saravia

Troma Pictures has been in production for so long that most film fans may not be aware of their output or their longevity. They are a strong NJ independent film company that financed and released films such as "Class of Nuke 'Em High 1-3," "The Toxic Avenger" pictures, "Pot Zombies," and many more. Leesa Rowland is an actress who played the pivotal role of Victoria in "Class of Nuke 'Em High Parts 2 and 3" but she actually got her start in a couple of non-Troma pictures. Although she may play the innocent, dim-witted blonde Victoria (a subhumanoid), she stands out in a cast that also includes Lisa Gaye with a Marge-Simpson hairdo. It is Rowland's and her male co-star's innocence, Brick Bronsky, that gives the early Troma pictures a certain upbeat quality.

Leesa Rowland grew up in Austin, Texas and is the daughter of an artist and a college professor. She studied broadcast journalism at Texas Tech and studied acting at the famed Stella Adler Studio in Los Angeles, CA. She currently produces and acts in a variety show called "Two City Girls" with her friend and fellow Troma costar, Lisa Gaye. With a career that almost spans thirty years, you'll be surprised to learn of Leesa's cinematic roots and where she is at today.

1.) It might be of interest to my readers that a Troma actress actually started out her career in a David Byrne film, the spectacular "True Stories" (1986) ['"60 Minutes" on Acid, according to Byrne']. You are listed in an uncredited role, so what was that role?

I was cast as one of three blondes sitting on bar stools at a nightclub, but they cut the scene out in post production!

2.) I couldn't help but notice a credit for "Book of Love" [A Bob Shaye-directed romantic comedy about a love reminiscence dating back to the 1950] - a film I saw in theaters back in good old 1990. You got to work with some actors of stature, especially Michael McKean. IMDB lists your role as "Honeymoon." You'll forgive me for not recalling your part specifically but what role was "Honeymoon" and how did that role come about? 

"Book of Love" was the first film that Bob Shaye (Founder of New Line) directed {and his sole directing credit to date]. I got the audition for Honeymoon through my agent and was cast after a couple of callbacks. Honeymoon was a traveling showgirl that Peanut (Aeryk Egan) meets at the carnival and has a crush on. He waits for her after the show to ask for her autograph [and he gets to be kissed by Leesa's character].
Leesa Rowland in Class of Nuke 'Em High 2 (1990)



3.) You are, of course, a member of the Troma universe. You were cast in "Sgt. Kabukiman: NYPD," "Class of Nuke 'Em High Part 2" and "3" in the same role of Victoria, working with luminary Troma actors such as Lisa Gaye and Brick Bronsky. Tell me about your introduction to the Troma pictures, the experience of making them and what you feel is their everlasting impact, especially in the independent scene. 

I auditioned for "Class of Nuke 'Em High 2: Subhumanoid Meltdown" in Los Angeles with Brick Bronksy who had already been cast. I played Brick's love interest, Victoria, a subhumanoid created by Professor Holt (Lisa Gaye), whom he meets in a laboratory sex experiment and falls in love with. He later saves my life by rescuing me from melting down into green goo. That was my beginning with Troma. I worked with the director (Eric Louzil) in a small role on an earlier film called "Shock 'Em Dead" with Troy Donahue and Tracy Lords. I always had fun working with Troma and love them because their films always have an underlining message.They've been making independent films for over 40 years and are as strong as ever!!

4.) I see a new film you are in is currently in post-production, entitled "Slaughter Daughter." Is this a bigger role than you've had before?

"Slaughter Daughter" will be finished next month. It is director Travis Campbell's second film. His first was Troma's "Mr. Brick's" (with Nicola Fiore and Tim Dax). I play Nicola Fiore's overbearing, vampy mother in "Slaughter Daughter" who aids in driving her increasingly mentally unstable daughter, a former beauty queen,over the edge!! She then plots my death with the help of a serial killer, (Tim Dax) on death row!! The film was written by Lauren Miller (assistant editor at "Teen Mom"). Ninety-five percent of the cast and crew were women! Post production for "Slaughter Daughter" will most likely be completed next month.

I am currently producing a film called "After Birth" with writer/director Tara Robinson (Chuckie's Revenge) which stars Nicole Fiore and Peter Stickles (Shortbus, Showgirls 2). I will play Bethany's (Nicola Fiore) mother again!! William Belli (Ru Paul's Drag Race) has been cast as the female office assistant at a clinic.We are currently in pre-production and will begin shooting in Los Angeles in September. "After Birth" is the story of a terrifying journey where a defenseless girl must fight for survival against her hungry, flesh-eating, demonic baby. "Will she survive the midnight feedings?"

5.) I have noticed your advocacy for animal rights and your strict vegan diet. Do you own a cat, dog, other animals or all the above?

I have a black and white tuxedo cat named Moo. He looks like a little holstein calf and is my best friend and confidant. I met him in Florida when I was working on a film called "The Bros."(Joey Fatone, Airielle Kebbel, Ludacris and Dennis Scott)

6.) Any charities or animal rights groups that you support by name that you would like mentioned?

I am an animal rights advocate and have been active with Last Chance for Animals, a national animal advocacy group for over 20 years. I have an informational website called Animal Ashram and am in the process of filing for a 501 non-profit so that I can make an Animal Ashram a no-kill animal shelter/yoga studio in New York City next year. http://www.animalashram.com/

I have recently appeared on television shows Million Dollar Listing (Bravo), Jersey Couture (Oxygen) and the upcoming Season 5 of Bravo's "Real Housewives of New York City."

I am also in post production on a documentary about the entertainment industry in Los Angeles called "LaLa Land" that I am producing with director Georgiana Nestor ("The Sublet.") We hope to have it completed in a month or two and will hit the film festival circuit with it.
Lisa Gaye and Leesa Rowland (right) in "Two City Girls"