Martini, shaken or stirred? I don't give a damn

CASINO ROYALE (2006)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Sean Connery epitomized the suave, killer instinct of everyone's favorite superspy, the one and only 007. Roger Moore played it for laughs with plenty of wit, as well maintaining the suavity. George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton never quite fit the role at all. Pierce Brosnan was simply a bore. But I am happy to report that Daniel Craig brings some much needed adrenaline, dry humor, intensity and killer instinct as 007 in one of the best James Bond films ever made, "Casino Royale."

Adapted from Ian Fleming's first novel, "Casino Royale" gives us a more gruff, realistic James Bond, one who is in danger of ever receiving his license to kill due to his volatile nature. At the start of the film, he kills a 00 agent who has been selling secrets. That is his second kill, the first kill is an informant. M (Judi Dench, more authoritative than ever) is reluctant to make the eager James Bond (Daniel Craig) a 00 agent. But Bond is reckless and in full control of his mission: find Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a terrorist banker, and take his money at a high stakes poker game so that he cannot finance any more terrorist organizations, and get the girl - this time a smart, sassy treasury agent named Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). Easier said than done. This Bond is not equipped with gadgets galore - he has to use his smarts and his cunning ability to run and jump across one rooftop building after another, not to mention climbing a scaffold at a construction site and a huge crane.

Bond also does a lot more fistfighting than usual, and narrowly gets out of one scrape after another. When he isn't using his fists, he has his Walther PPK gun. When he isn't interrupted by dangerous, life-threatening circumstances while playing poker, he comforts Vesper in a shower scene that is surprisingly touching. This is a James Bond that we care about - Craig shows Bond's humanity, sensitivity and charm and his lack of grace when ordering a martini (Let's just say that Connery never went there). One ingredient missing is Bond's firsthand knowledge of all aspects of his mission; still, this is first major mission so I will let that slide. He also proves to be a lean, muscular killing machine. And the testicle torture scene is extremely tough stuff for a Bond movie (yes, even more torturous than 1989's "License to Kill"). 

As for the villain, we have Le Chiffre whose left eye has the occasionally tear of blood. He is not the usual world-dominating villain - simply a man who is at odds with his money and is vulnerable enough when confronting the people he owes money to. You feel sorry for the guy, something which I can't say I ever felt for Blofeld.

Directed crisply and smoothly by Martin Campbell (who also helmed "Goldeneye"), "Casino Royale" is superlative, first-class entertainment that is edgier, far more intense and more edge-of-your-seat than almost any Bond film with Sean Connery at his peak. Between foot chases and fistfights in hotel staircases and an out-of-control car chase in an airport, there is the sinking of a palazzo that has to be seen to be believed. I have enjoyed most Bond films over the last thirty years (complete with a lack of interest in any that Pierce Brosnan appeared in, aside from "Goldeneye" and "Die Another Day"). But Daniel Craig's Bond sweats bullets in this film, and so will you.

Burt Renolds wants you!

PATERNITY (1981)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The 1970's and 80's were filled with comedies of all sizes and shapes. There were outrageous comedies of the Mel Brooks and Monty Python variety, slapstick like the unforgivable "Slapstick of Another Kind" and the more forgiving and restrained "Micki and Maude," and then there were movies like "Paternity." What is alarming about "Paternity" is that it could only have been made in the 1980's. The movie is genial and pleasing like 1982's vastly underrated "Author, Author," but, more importantly, it doesn't call attention to itself. There is good comic timing and respectable performances and some sublime moments courtesy of Burt Reynolds and Elizabeth Ashley.

Reynolds brings his easygoing charm to the screen as the manager of Madison Square Garden. He is a bachelor but he is not interested in settling down - he just wants a surrogate mother to give birth to a baby, preferably a son. There are a few candidates, including a hilarious misunderstanding with Lauren Hutton as an interior decorator, but no one satisfactory. That is until he meets a waitress (Beverly D'Angelo), who wants to go to an expensive art school in France she can't afford. Reynolds offers 50,000 dollars for her to be the surrogate mother. No mention is made of the fact that she could use the money to go to art school. In fact, Reynolds seems to hold little interest in her as anything but an "unemotional business transaction." He uses those words a lot but, since this is a romantic comedy, you can see where it is headed.

"Paternity" has a slow middle but it is occasionally entertaining and it builds on the chemistry of Reynolds and D'Angelo, who make a dynamite pair. I also found Elizabeth Ashley to be sublime in the few scenes she has where she talks about bringing up children of her own. Also look for young Peter Billingsley, before his iconic role in "A Christmas Story," as a kid who plays basketball with Reynolds.

"Paternity" is a safe, harmless date movie, and probably one of Reynolds' best roles before succumbing to the lows of "Cannonball Run" and its infinite copycats. It would make a nice double-feature with "Author, Author."

Mirror, Mirror, Jill Whitlow is the fairest of them all

 
TWICE DEAD (1988)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Twice Dead" is a goofy horror-comedy that could only have existed in the 1980's. It is difficult to take seriously and its tongue is firmly placed in its cheek, and the gore for a relatively spooky haunted house feature is minimal.

The Cates family have moved into a mansion they inherited. It once belonged to a 1930's stage actor who hung himself after stabbing a female wax figure in the back! Of course, the Cates are unaware of this completely. However, Scott Cates (Tom Bresnahan), a college student interested in FX and makeup, discovers the belongings of this dashing stage actor in the attic, including an old record player and a noose! Scott's sister, (Jill Whitlow), who has an interested in kilns, is drawn in by these findings. Unfortunately, the family has to contend with punk squatters in the opening scenes of the film. These guys look like leftovers from "The Lost Boys," only they are not vampires (that might have been interesting if they were). Silk (Christopher Burgard) is the leader of this gang, and Crip (Jonathan Chapin) has a fixation on Robin and tears up every time he sees her.

Why this gang of misfits wants to hang out at this mansion is the question everyone should be asking - it is only beneficial to the scant plot we are provided. The ghost of the 30's actor resides in the mansion and cannot stand the punks, thus proving to be helpful to Scott and Robin (who bears a resemblance to the wax figure he stabs in the prologue) in thwarting them. And thanks to Scott's father, Scott keeps his shotgun nearby just in case.

"Twice Dead" is a fun little ghost story with a couple of neat little twists. It is also horrendously lit and, occasionally, laughably acted. The outside shots of the mansion and a silly Camaro-and-hearse chase are flatly lit. The scenes inside the mansion are controlled with a good use of shadows and mirror shots.

In terms of casting, laughable can only begin to describe Todd Bridges as Pete, Scott's library buddy - you'd think he was still stuck in "Different Strokes" mode. Tom Bresnahan and Jill Whitlow have too much chemistry to be siblings - the writers should have made them a teen couple rather than blood-related. Still, those enamored with Jill Whitlow and her cute voice will pine for her in this movie.

"Twice Dead" is nothing special nor will it be remembered as anything other than a Roger-Corman-produced campy horror flick. Those of you nostalgic for Charlie Spradling's breasts; some gory killings by methods including a dumb waiter and motorcycle; cheesy hair metal songs; Brooke Bundy as a caring mother and wife (unlike her mother role in "Nightmare on Elm Street 4"), and those of you still carrying your 80's teenage crush on Jill Whitlow who is at her perkiest here (aside from "Night of the Creeps"), "Twice Dead" fits the bill for an evening of minor thrills, some scares and a few laughs.

I dee endo

BEST FRIENDS (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

One of the pleasures of Burt Reynolds is his complete confidence as a romantic leading man, and his underrated ability to deliver nuanced comic lines and adult emotions that go beyond "Cannonball Run." That is also one of the intrinsic pleasures of Norman Jewison's "Best Friends," a sophisticated adult film about a grown-up relationship between two adults and the messiness of marriage in its inception.

Burt Reynolds and Goldie Hawn play a couple of Hollywood screenwriters, Richard and Paula, who are lovers and live together in a cozy house, not some glorious mansion thank goodness. One day, they decide that since they are moving in to a new house, they may as well get married. Richard and Paula attend a chapel in L.A. where everyone speaks Spanish. Why? Perhaps because it gives Richard Libertini the opportunity to speak as the Hispanic minister and give the funniest line in the film, "I dee endo."

Richard and Paula decide to travel by train to make the announcement to their parents. They make their first stop in the icy cold Buffalo, NY, where they meet Paula's parents (wonderfully played by Jessica Tandy and Barnard Hughes). Paula's parents have a mutual understanding about their marriage, now that they are celebrating their 40th anniversary. It turns out that Tandy accepts her husband's inclination to masturbate in their bathroom to some porn mags, and to fondle their maid.

Next stop is Virginia where the couple meet Richard's parents. The mother (Audra Lindley) takes pictures at the most inopportune moments, whereas the father (Kennan Wynn) is set in his ways. Both are incredulous that the couple got married and are told about it after the fact.

Most of "Best Friends" has Richard and Paula fighting, bickering and arguing, particularly when they are trying to finish some sort of screenplay that is supposed to have a final shot of a fake sunset. He tries to calm her down by having her ingest Valiums. She wants space and doesn't want to be limited or restricted to being simply a wife. Their marriage changes things, as opposed to being the lovey-dovey couple we see at the beginning.

"Best Friends" is a grown-up movie, saddled with reality and ambiguity about relationships and the friction that can ensue. Though there are some laughs, this is more of a serious treatment of a relationship gone sour. Burt Reynolds has never been more understated. Goldie is past her "Cactus Flower" days - she handles her character's unnerving mood swings better than Meryl Streep might have. Having reliable pros like Jessica Tandy, Barnard Hughes, Audra Lindley and Keenan Wynn is the icing on the cake, complementing what a long, lived-in marriage entails. "Best Friends" is a winning delight on every level. 

Jesus' real passion, peace, remains unexplored

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
Originally reviewed on March 6th, 2004

In order to understand how Jesus suffered, we should understand how he lived.
It is assumed that most people know who was, what he stood for,
his spiritual matters, and the arguable fact (for atheists and agnostics
anyway) that he was the Son of God. I remember my first girlfriend, a Catholic,
stating that Jesus did not die for our sins. Others will say he did. I will not
state how I feel about Jesus but I will often ask myself, "Was he human?" Of
course, he was. Looking at Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," any human
that endures the physical pain and abuse to the body that Jesus takes must be
human. So, did he doubt he was the Son of God, especially at the moment he was
nailed to the cross? And how about the famous line, "God, why have you forsaken
me?" Last I heard, forsaken meant to abandon. God abandoned his only son at the
moment when he needed him the most? Just a thought.

Okay, so I am not delivering a sermon here but a crucial point must be made. People close to me have told me at the time that "The Passion of the Christ" had to be seen because Christ's crucifixion and the Stations of the Cross were so powerfully rendered. Not one soul told me that Jesus's teachings are explored in the film, and that specifically Jesus's own thoughts would be a good enough reason to see it. You have to remember that the last major film about Jesus Christ was Martin Scorsese's very spiritual and very moving "The Last Temptation of Christ," a film that caused storms of protest and picket lines all around the country in 1988. The reasons were the controversial sequence of Jesus's temptation on the cross and that he had grave doubts he was the Son of God. Since then, films about very spiritual matters rarely rocked at the box-office (unless you consider "Forrest Gump" and "The Matrix" to be spiritual). There was also 2003's little-seen Canadian film about Jesus's life called "The Gospel of John," a film I had some interest in seeing but it disappeared quickly. But a film directed by Mel Gibson where Christ's suffering is depicted in graphic detail apparently means big box-office. After all, would you rather see a film about Jesus teaching us the meaning of love and compassion for 126 minutes, or would you rather be subjected to 100 minutes of Christ being flogged, pushed and prodded while carrying a heavy cross? By any indication, especially the box-office numbers, the latter is more likely.

Now, the Catholic Church and other religious groups, and former altar boys I gather, are endorsing this film because it deals with the Stations of the Cross, almost all 12 of them, in explicit detail. There are some changes, as one would assume from any adaptation of a book like the Bible. There is an androgynous black-cloaked Satanic figure (Rosalinda Celentano) who follows Jesus to his crucifixion (Jesus is played, by the way, by James Caviezel who certainly has a beatific face). Occasionally, this demon makes eye contact with Mary, Jesus's mother (Maia Morgenstern), and also connects with Jesus in the opening sequence at the Garden of Gethsemane. There is the remarkably emotional moment when Mary washes the blood off the ground after her son is scourged beyond belief (again, not mentioned in the Bible, though it could have happened. But would Pilate's wife have given her the towels?). There is also a terse moment when Mary is ready to pick up stones from the ground and pelt the guards, but then she drops them - if any moment is truly spiritual in Gibson's epic, this is definitely it.

And now for the detractors and their comments. One is that the film is Anti-Semitic because it shows the Jews killing the most famous Jew of them all - a charge that is ridiculous in hindsight when you consider that the Roman guards, Judas, Pontius Pilate and others are not exactly seen as guiltless. Never mind that the Apostles, including Judas, were Jews but the argument is directed more at the angry mob of screaming Jews (remember "Jesus Christ Superstar"? In that film, they rant "Crucify him!" over and over). I am surprised that nobody said Satan was the culprit - she must not have been happy seeing her snake getting stomped on by Jesus in the opening sequence! Was Caiaphas, the greedy, vile Jewish high priest, (Mattia Sbragia), who yelled to Pontius, "Crucify him!" He basically joined the angry mob where more than a few Jews are shown rallying against the blood-soaked preacher. And was the cruel ruler Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) the kind of warm, lovey-dovey type who would offer Jesus a drink before pronouncing capital punishment? Pilate could have said no to Caiaphas, and just give the Savior a good old-fashioned whipping as punishment. However, it develops into an ultimatum - either he lets him go and is reviled by the people, or he gives them what they want. Must we all forget that Jesus was seen as a threat to the order, to the peace of the land? Anyone that proclaims to be the Son of God could be seen as dangerous. But no film is powerful enough to cause a rise of Anti-Semitism. The debate continues.

As directed by Mel Gibson, "The Passion of the Christ" unfolds with several acts of brutality and a truly vicious crucifixion sequence that is not for the squeamish. This is no surprise coming from the director of "Braveheart," a blood-soaked, rip-roaring and overlong epic if there ever was one. Nothing in Scorsese's "Temptation" film approaches the level of intensity seen here, as we witness a man relentlessly brutalized, beaten, strapped, flagellated, pushed out of bridges, and thrown from carrying the Cross like a wounded, helpless animal. Unlike what some people have said about the violence, Gibson doesn't show the actual piercings and whippings against Jesus's body (excepting a few split-second shots) - we mostly see the agonizing face of Jesus or the emotionally devastated faces of Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci) while hearing the sounds of death. This is the correct way of choreographing such violence, making the audience think they have seen more violence than they actually had.

At times, the film is absurdly melodramatic and overcooked, particularly with scenarios of God's and Satan's intervention that are more suited to a gory Gothic horror flick than a story about Jesus. But "The Passion of the Christ" also has moments of true power, and Gibson knows how to accentuate the humanity of others when confronted with Jesus's last few hours leading up to his death (let's not forget the sequence of Simon of Syrene helping Jesus carry the cross). Still, there are no spiritual lessons to be learned, no Jesus speaking of love and compassion (one brief flashback will not do), and no real basis for why Catholics and others love Jesus in the first place. The suffering and physical pain are not the whole story, nor the fact that he was a carpenter and knew how to make a wooden dining room table. There are so few films that ever focus on spiritual matters about love and compassion that it is rightly assumed that audiences are more inclined to see a violent Biblical epic than an intellectual one. Gibson shows us how the Son of God died (he died for all of us, after all) - I wish he had been just as interested in showing how he lived.

Brando on the American Dream

THE FORMULA (1980)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It is a shame that "The Formula" doesn't gel because it starts so promisingly and ends so satisfactorily. It is the middle of the picture that falls apart. "The Formula" is a conspiracy thriller that deals with some formula concocted by the Nazis during World War II that could convert coal into synthetic fuel or, if you like, into the most prized commodity of the 20th century - oil. The corporations have had access to this formula for some time but have never made it public, and those that tried were killed.

Marlon Brando plays the head of one of these corporations who has purposely suppressed this formula for nothing other than greed (and to keep tabs on the stock market). George C. Scott plays a Los Angeles detective who finds out that one of his law enforcement friends had been murdered. His friend is a retired police detective who once served in the military during World War II. It turns out that his friend also dealt in cocaine but may have been killed because he knew too much about the secret Nazi formula. In flashback, we see Scott's friend stopping a Nazi commandant who is holding some secret files detailing the formula ingredients. This takes Scott to Germany where he commingles with Nazi scientists, professors and some German mystery woman (Marthe Keller) who is not quite what she seems.

Based on a best-selling novel by Steve Shagan, "The Formula" is at times involving but it is so muddled and laborious that you'll wonder what the big deal is. Scott is seen parading around Germany looking for clues that only make sense to him - we are left in the cold with clinical details about scientific information and formula ingredients. Each time Scott speaks to someone directly involved with the formula, that person is killed by some unseen sniper (though I must add that Scott has no idea anyone is being shot because the killings often happen after he leaves). And throughout the film, we see some mysterious stranger following Scott, though Scott has no idea he's being followed. Is the stranger the assassin? Is the German mystery woman a member of some terrorist organization or does she simply have a thing for Scott's attention, especially when she has nightmares of the Holocaust?

The brightest element in "The Formula" is Marlon Brando's exemplary, restrained performance as the greedy, evil leader of a corporation that profits from oil, and the last thing he needs is to reveal a formula that will help bring down costs. His final scene with Scott is what great studies in acting are all about - play it straight and evoke a subtle touch of humor. Brando makes the scene his own, quoting Thomas Jefferson on how greed leads to a powerful, financially secure nation, not morality. It is such an exemplary scene, so well-shot and acted that it has almost nothing to do with the rest of the picture. The bulk of the film has to do with shadowy witnesses to the formula, and the notion of conspiracy comes to the surface. It leaves your head in the clouds with thin air since it has no sense of suspense or peril. There are too many characters, too much detailed information that leads nowhere. When you can't remember what character John Gielgud played or what his purpose was in the story, you know you are in trouble. As for George C. Scott, well, he knows how to overact and acts as if he's as bewildered about his surroundings as the audience will be. And yet with such a gripping finale, you wish the filmmakers pursued a subject worthy of some scrutiny, some level of surprise. Brando has his own formula down cold - the rest of the movie only wishes it was as good as Brando. 

Jason Voorhees' worst nightmare

FREDDY VS. JASON (2003)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It was bound to happen and in 2003, it finally did. After years of countless rumors and rewrites, the pairing of the slasher horror titans had finally been unleashed. "Freddy vs. Jason" was not bad and had some creative ideas, though it is your basic gory slasher flick. On the other hand, when it comes to Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees, how can you expect anything less?

This time, burn-scarred Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) explains how he persuaded goalie-masked Jason Voorhees (Ken Kirzinger, replacing Kane Hodder) to go to good old Springwood (the home of Elm Street) and start carving up teenagers so Freddy can be blamed for their deaths. Although this idea may sound convoluted, it is promising since the town has chosen to forget Freddy Krueger's existence (most of their teen population had been eliminated in past movies) - any one teen that can dredge up his name is placed in a mental institution. So if nobody fears him, nobody can dream about him. Jason merely hacks his way through the town and a rave with his machete, accruing a high body count. But now that Freddy's intended victims are being slaughtered by Mr. Voorhees, Freddy decides to have a physical match with Jason in his dreams.

"Freddy vs. Jason" has all the basic ingredients of your average slasher flick - there are gallons of blood, a high body count, gratuitous female nudity, a shower scene, a number of incendiary, zitless, horny teens and a delectably witty stoner sequence. Since this is not only a sequel to "Nightmare on Elm Street" but also "Friday the 13th," you can count on some outlandish dream sequences and the cliched "Who's there?" scenes, not to mention a number of false alarms. Only until the final half-hour are we treated to what we have been clamoring for - an intensely violent match between Freddy and Jason in the boiler room that exceeds expectations. Let's just say that it is crudely funny and inventive (including a clever flashback to Jason's early days as a bullied, deformed kid) - who could ever win such a match? Suffice to say that both get their just desserts (a comic-book sequel called "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" followed).

I have never been a fan of "Friday the 13th," seeing only the first two sequels and the interminable "Jason Goes to Manhattan." I have always enjoyed "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and its numerous sequels and found that Freddy Krueger always had more charisma and personality than the robotic Jason. Still, for Elm Street fans, there are only a handful of the creative dream sequences that have become a hallmark of the series, and Freddy's repartee is kept to a minimum. Jason seems to have more screen time, slashing and pummeling his victims with his machete. The intended teen victims all seem older than they should be and only exist to be carved up by either of the horror icons (though it is pleasing enough to see Jason Ritter and Monica Keena together). The one slasher victim that bears a little more interest and soul is Katharine Isabelle (the slutty werewolf in the cultish "Ginger Snaps") if only because she possesses a vitality the others can't match - too bad her screen time is limited. One stoner character, an obvious model of Jay from Kevin Smith's View Askew universe, has a great line after witnessing the rave massacre: "That goalie must have been pissed about something."

So if you like gory slasher flicks and would enjoy seeing Freddy kicking Jason's butt and likewise, then "Freddy vs. Jason" may be the movie for you (it is directed by Ronny Yu, who helmed the fiendishly funny "Bride of Chucky"). If you find the slasher genre disreputable and responsible for the decline of the western civilization, then stay far, far away.