Spielberg whips it good

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Spielberg's masterful "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was set in the year 1936. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" takes place in 1935, one year before the events of "Raiders." Not that it matters because this entry retains the flavor, if not the subtlety, of the original. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" remains the most exhausting action-adventure film ever made, building on one clever surprise and predicament after another and never letting up for one second. "Raiders" had momentum and moments where the audience could breathe. Spielberg goes so over-the-top that it seems we are watching a manic cartoon on overdrive where we can hardly brake for a single breath.

The film begins with an explosive opening sequence set in Shanghai that practically outdoes "Raiders" famous opening. We see Indiana dressed in a tuxedo, entering a ritzy nightclub where he meets some nefarious Chinese gangsters. Before you know it, Indiana is poisoned; seeking a vial with the antidote while evading bullets and a Chinese gong; dancers try to perform "Anything Goes" while there is chaos; there are dozens of balloons, rickshaws, and so on. It is a tense, almost spooky action sequence in that the intensity level is so high that you feel you are in a roller coaster that never ends. That is the spirit of the movie. Anyways, Indiana leaves Shanghai almost unscathed from harm with a floozy singer in tow, Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), and a smart-mouthed Chinese kid named Short Round (Ke Huy Quan) who wears a Yankees hat. They travel by plane until they discover there are no pilots! Then we are in another tense sequence where Indiana tries to fly the plane but fails, gets an inflatable raft (!) and off we go! Before you can say "whew," our weary travelers are in India. It turns out that a small village is suffering thanks to the loss of some precious, magical stones. Of course, Indiana has to travel to a palace where the stones are kept and bring them back to the village. But isn't he a professor and shouldn't he be heading back to America?

Inside the palace, it is discovered that a secret, ancient ritual is performed where hearts are ripped out from unlucky villagers, yet they still manage to breathe! Yes, it is a gross moment among many. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" has been criticized for its heavy graphic violence and intense action scenes. It was so intense that it led to the creation of the PG-13 rating (that summer saw the mean, thoroughly vicious "Gremlins" which also helped to create such a rating). "Temple of Doom" piles on the gross gags including the eating of monkey brains and oozing liquids and other disgusting creatures in every single crevice of the underground palace. There are also whippings galore, beatings aplenty, and some occasional blood and gore. Some of it is layed on so thick that Spielberg feels he may as well give it all - what the heck, audiences want the thrill-a-minute cliffhangers of "Raiders" and it is delivered ten fold. Some gags go a long way and others do shock, particularly the infamous heart-ripping scene.

Still, "Temple of Doom" is about doom, not "the temple of roses" as Spielberg once said. For thrilling action and incomparable fright, nobody can do it better than the Spielman. We have a room of collapsing walls with spikes, cavernous hideaways, mine cars, waterfalls, planes, collapsing rope bridges, chains, leather, whips, and so on. And our hero even repeats the old marksman versus the swordsman joke only this time, there is no gun!

Ford plays it straight as usual, and is more muscular than before (thanks to Body by Jake in the credits). Kate Capshaw remains a bit of a bore in the film, far too whiny and insipid to inspire much sympathy. Still, she has a few bravura moments, especially the "five minute" scene where she waits for Indiana to make love to her. She has some pizazz and comedic energy but hardly enough, and is no comparison to the feisty Karen Allen in the original. Ke Huy Quan is also a bit of a whiner but also has his inspired moments (like the Buster Keaton gag of climbing onto a mine car by using someone else's body) and a few good one-liners.

The dastardly villain is Mola Ram (Amrish Puri), the leader of a Thuggee cult who is determined to find the lost Sankara stones in the mines. He is cartoonishly evil, lacking some of the depth and personality of the Nazi villains and especially Belloq, the French archaeologist from "Raiders." Still, Mola Ram is a formidable opponent for Indy. At one point, after hearing of Mola Ram's plans to rule the world, Indiana exclaims, "What a vivid imagination." Indeed. Nice bit of trivia: Mola Ram was also a villain in the excellent "Gunga Din."

Possibly the darkest fantasy film Spielberg has ever made, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" hardly has the sunny disposition of "Raiders" but it is a fierce, unrelenting often humorous action film that often parodies itself and "Raiders." Its vivid, tantalizing action scenes are so grim and of such a roller-coaster-ride mentality that it gives new meaning to the word "breathless."

Never say no to Connery

NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

In 1983, after a twelve-year absence, Sean Connery returned to the role that made him famous: the suave secret spy James Bond. He returned with the smoothness and incalculable presence of the true spy hero we have all come to know and love. "Never Say Never Again" was the ironic title but, outside of Connery and one of the best damn Bond villains ever, the movie is only fitfully exciting and nowhere near as engrossing or as thrilling as Connery's earlier Bond pictures.

James Bond is now a teacher who is asked to complete a strict regiment of diet and exercise at a health farm. He has poisoned his body with too many toxins, including red meat, white bread and dry martinis. "Well, I shall cut out the white bread," says Mr. Bond. Heck, can you imagine Bond not drinking a dry martini? At the health farm, Bond gets wind of trouble when a certain Fatima Blush (Barbara Carrera) is beating the holy hell out of some poor schmoe who refuses to scan his eye! Turns out the poor schmoe is...well, if you have seen "Thunderball," you'll know this is an outright remake. Why they chose to remake "Thunderball" is beyond me (something about a contractual obligation) but the plot involves SPECTRE putting the world at ransom after stealing two nuclear missiles. They acquired these missiles thanks to the poor schmoe's fake eye that replicates The President of the United States's right eye! Bond is asked into service to spy on a key figure in this crisis, the suave Largo (Klaus Maria Brandeur), who owns a beautiful ship called "The Flying Saucer" where he can monitor his missiles and have nice conversations with dear old Blofeld (Max Von Sydow). Of course, Bond must also evade Fatima's charms and explosives, play a deadly computer game where the risks mean greater electrical shocks, survive shark attacks, do the tango with Largo's babelicious Kim Basinger, practice massage therapy, use his laser wristwatch to get out of jams, and so on.

I could say that if you have seen one Bond film, you've seen them all. The difference is that Connery's Bond brings back the charm and danger of the real superspy, the man we believed could kill without much provocation. It is the danger element that was missing from Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton's portrayals - Connery has it in spades.

To complement Connery's performance, we have the witty, sneak, mad Largo played by Brandeur. It is a performance of uncontrollable rage and genuine pathos. Look carefully at two scenes he shares with Basinger (playing the good Bond girl, Domino). One has Domino asking Largo what he would do if she left him - "I'll cut your throat," he says as he kisses her. The other tense scene has Largo giving her a priceless artifact to only then destroy it. "You are crazy," says Domino. "Yes, maybe I am," replies Largo. Brandeur and screenwriter Lorenzo Semple, Jr. bring a frightening quality to Largo - acknowledgement of one's own evil. We want him dead yet we feel pity for him. Of all the Bond villains I have seen, Brandeur's Largo may be the most memorable and the most threatening to Bond.

It would have been wonderful to bring back Desmond Llewelyn as the real expert inventor Q (this time played by Alex McCowen), having one last go at humiliating Connery's Bond with his expert knowledge of all gadgets. McCowen is fine but somehow his line deliveries are not as engaging. There is also a new Miss Moneypenny and a new Felix Leitner (interestingly played by Bernie Casey) but both actors pale in comparison to their original counterparts. Only Edward Fox has the right touch as M.

"Never Say Never Again" is not as exciting or as intriguing as Connery's earlier Bonds (the finale is awkward involving an underwater fight) but it will do for Connery fans. This is more of a relaxed action thriller than most - the perfect film to watch with a dry martini.

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.