Roger Moore as relaxed as ever

A VIEW TO A KILL (1985)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Roger Moore took his final bow as James Bond with 1985's "A View to a Kill," and it was well worth the effort. Forget what critics said at the time who lambasted the film - I suppose they found it to be a serviceable Bond with no new tricks. Despite its lack of gimmicky gadgets, this Bond film was more than serviceable - it was laid-back and actually kind of fun. It is self-parodic at times, though not as much as "Moonraker" or "Octopussy."

Bond is now after a typically megalomaniac Bond villain, former KGB agent Max Zorin (Christopher Walken), a psychopath with dreams of cornering the computer chip market in Silicon Valley by essentially destroying it with an earthquake and flooding it with seawater! That is one way to destroy the competition! (There is also some business about a racing scam that is given short shrift). Grace Jones is on hand as his sexy kung-fu girlfriend who has as much spine as Zorin does.

Then we have the Bond girl, this time a geologist named Stacey Sutton (Tanya Roberts), who is about as exciting a female lead as she was in "Sheena: Queen of the Jungle." Her character used to work for Zorin, now she works for the governor of California. There is also Tibbet (Patrick MacNee), Bond's partner and faux limo driver, who is as efficient as Bond, though he forgets to see who may be hiding in the backseat of his limo! Oh, and Bond pretends to be a journalist (and he makes a mean omelet!) Also interesting is the locale - normally American locations American locationswere not used in Bond films prior to "A View to a Kill" (excepting "Diamonds are Forever" with its Vegas location).

In terms of stunts, there are some nifty ones. We get yet another ski chase, this time with Bond using a snowboard and a snowmobile, to the tune of the Beach Boys! There is also Bond driving a car that gets cut in half! Bond riding on a steeple chase in a course set with some traps. A car chase where Bond is hanging from a fire engine ladder. A truly death-defying burning elevator scene! As for nifty and inventive modes of transportation, well, there is an iceberg submarine!

Moore downplays beautifully, and peroxide blonde Walken can be terrifying (with his share of double entendres). There is not much more to report in this 007 outing except it is not as bad as its reputation seems to indicate (and it is a couple of miles ahead of "For Your Eyes Only"). Seen one Bond, seen them all would be the phrase. Still, smirking, witty Moore gives it a lift and makes us glad we are there.

The Star Child makes contact

2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

You know the impact that Stanley Kubrick had with "2001: A Space Odyssey" when a brief picture of him figures in "2010" on a Time magazine cover - he is shown as the Soviet Premier right next to Arthur C. Clarke, the author of "2001." "2010" is an impossible task to follow on the coattails of "2001" but it is unfair to think that no sequel could or should be made. Under the direction of Peter Hyams ("Outland"), it is no great work of art but it is certainly no disaster.

Roy Scheider stars as Dr. Heywood Floyd, a noble scientist who feels the Discovery ship's disastrous journey to Jupiter was his fault. To backtrack for those who have not been lucky to witness Kubrick's film or Clarke's novel, the Discovery ship was piloted by two astronauts, one of them being Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea). The other astronauts were killed by the supercomputer HAL 9000, and Dave wandered into the far reaches of the universe and evolved into some Star Child. Floyd knows nothing of the Star Child or those monoliths that orbit Jupiter. Nevertheless, he decides to embark on a trip to Jupiter (which will take roughly two years) and reluctantly travels with a Russian crew - they are riding on a Soviet vessel known as the Leonov. At this time, the U.S. and Russia are on the brink of a nuclear war over Central America (hey, this was 1984). The Leonov's commander is Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren), who is none too pleased to be traveling with Americans who ask too many questions (there is an implication that the Soviets would rather do all the work and find the Discovery ship and its mysteries for themselves). Also on board are two Americans, Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban), who designed the HAL computer, and an engineer named Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), the designer of the Discovery.

"2010" is full of dialogue, probably more than is needed since the film barely comes close to the visual power of Kubrick's masterpiece. One of the key sequences of "2001" was its climax where you heard total silence while the astronauts were outside the ship - in space, you can't hear anything. "2010" violates that rule. There is also far too much voice-over narration by Dr. Floyd which interrupts the narrative during key moments - we do not need to hear his voice as his transmissions are read to his wife and daughter on Earth. Still, there is much to savor throughout. Scheider's Floyd portrayal is more full-bodied than the colder, detached William Sylvester from the original film. And it is thrilling to watch Dr. Chandra trying to reconnect with HAL, knowing of course what HAL was up to before. John Lithgow brings some understated humor as the engineer with a bad case of vertigo. And there are many startling sequences, including a hair-raising moment where the Leonov turns off its engines as it orbits a planet.

"2010" ties up a few loose ends, including one involving HAL and a strange ending that will not satisfy many (myself included). Peter Hyams is in the unenviable position of positing a more hopeful picture than a pessimist like Kubrick. Some may get annoyed with the reappearance of Keir Dullea as Bowman who insists that something wonderful is about to happen. For all its flaws, "2010" is still an effective movie but it has no trace of the poetry or ambiguity that Kubrick imbued "2001" with. Maybe it is too much to expect nowadays, or even in 1984, for a film to rely on visuals to tell a story and to keep audiences guessing as to the mystery and power of an infinite universe. "2001" had maybe twenty minutes of dialogue in a 2 hour film. "2010" beats it by almost a full hour and a half.

To giggity, or not giggity with LeBrock...

THE WOMAN IN RED (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There is a great moment I remember so fondly from "The Woman in Red" when it was on cable back in the mid-1980's. Gene Wilder is sitting in a car, hiding from Gilda Radner. She finds him in the car and he feigns a heart attack. She then reaches inside the car and pulls the brake, thus sending Gene's car rolling down those steep streets in San Francisco. That is one of the big laughs in a largely restrained, diluted but charming souffle of a movie.

Gene Wilder is Teddy, a San Francisco businessman working for an ad agency who spots Kelly LeBrock one fine day inside a garage as she passes an air vent, Marilyn Monroe-style. LeBrock is a famous supermodel. Teddy is married to a woman (Judith Ivey) who keeps a gun in their bedroom drawer! He wants nothing more than to have sex with LeBrock, and lies and stages hysterical acts to get there. One has Charles Grodin pretending to be blind as he endlessly knocks over bar glasses, and another involves the always engaging Joseph Bologna pretending that his wife has left him again by shouting at the top of his lungs in front of Teddy's wife.

For a rollicking farce, "Woman in Red" is not that chaotic, just this side of subdued. Matthew Zorek as some teen punk is far too laid-back. Still, for some measure of goodwill, we got the late Gilda Radner. Her character leads to a few misunderstandings in the beginning when she thinks Teddy has the hots for her (who could confuse Radner with LeBrock?) Wilder has many bravura moments, especially when trying to get one of his friends (who are all unfaithful) to call his house when his wife is home so he can pretend to refuse to go to work at a late hour, which is when he could meet up with LeBrock. Mostly the film has a leisurely pace, lacking the chaos of Howard Hawks who could speed this thing up like no one's business, once upon a time. 

Based on a French farce known as "Pardon Mon Affaire," the movie sparkles rather than energizes its slight plot, which is really about Gene Wilder trying to get laid with the stunning Kelly LeBrock. Nothing more, nothing less but oh, what fun. 

The Boss in Rockaway Beach

NO LOOKING BACK (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

After making the fresh surprise of "The Brothers McMullen" and the insufferable sophomore effort, "She's the One," writer-director Ed Burns turns back to less gloss and more grit. Or so it seems.
The opening of "No Looking Back" has grayish skies and grayish boardwalks in Rockaway Beach, NY. A blonde woman arrives at her house holding her bag of groceries (a shot that is repeated a few times) and we sense some form of despair. That woman is Claudia (Lauren Holly), a diner waitress who is living with her fiance, Mike (Jon Bon Jovi) who works double-shifts at his job. She is not ready for a full commitment, that is marriage and kids, and she wishes to go to a restaurant out in Manhattan instead of the same-old same-old local bar. Claudia's mother (Blythe Danner) is optimistic her husband will return, who basically walked out on the whole family. Claudia understands why and, yet, she fears that Mike is someone who will grow complacent. Or she might walk out on him.

Everything looks grim until the slacker Charlie (Edward Burns) arrives back in town after three years - he once had a romantic relationship with Claudia but she got an abortion and he skipped town. All he can do is be a mechanic but he is hoping to woo Claudia back into his life.

I know what some of you are thinking and/or feeling - YAWN! But I gotta say that "No Looking Back" is a far better film than "She's the One" but not nearly as winsome as "The Brothers McMullen." Let us also say that "McMullen," as fresh and invigorating as it was, was a little bit thin but it worked in the way it spun its New York Irish characters with an upbeat feeling. "She's the One" felt like it was written by a computer. "No Looking Back" benefits from excellent performances, especially Blythe Danner as the eternal optimist, Lauren Holly as the girl who is tickled pink by Charlie but is also searching for her own individuality, Connie Briton as Claudia's sister who has one big emotional scene that left me devastated (she is damn good and you might remember her as the forgiving wife in "McMullen"), and Jon Bon Jovi who proves he is a better actor than a singer. I can't leave out Edward Burns who plays a character type, a slacker from a working class background, but he does it so convincingly that the Bruce Springsteen songs in the soundtrack help visualize Burns in the role he plays.

 "No Looking Back" did poorly at the box-office and got negative notices. That is a shame because Burns is a fine director - he works beautifully with actors and allows them time on screen in sustained long takes. Though he should still work on embellishing his characters and make them shine, Burns has got the stuff to be a great director some day and he is not afraid to be honest and true. 

Blasphemy of the prophet Mohammed, or stupid propaganda?

INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS: Irresponsible filmmaking?

By Jerry Saravia

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in hiding over the controversial "Innocence of Muslims"

Where does a filmmaker's responsibility lie? When a film is released and causes an uproar and violent protests, how much responsibility should a filmmaker claim to the work itself? These are questions one could ask about the highly controversial "The Innocence of Muslims," an anti-Islam film that has been used as a bludgeoning political tool against all Muslims, perhaps specifically Muslim/Islamic extremists. The unfortunate 9/11/12 Benghazi bombing at a consulate that left 12 dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, has left ripples on both American political party lines and a lot of justified anger from Muslims. The film "Innocence of Muslims" has been blamed for the incident and worldwide protests have sparked furor across the Middle East and Europe, Australia and Canada. But is it really the film's fault or is the film being used as an excuse? Supposedly, al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the embassy attack in response to the U.S. drone strike which killed Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader.

"Innocence of Muslims" began under the title "Desert Warriors" and had to do with a certain Master George. The producer/filmmaker is Sam Bacile, real name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who did not tell the actors that the film had to do with the Prophet Mohammed. He also told the film crew he was an Israeli real estate mogul when in fact he is an Egyptian and a Coptic Christian (and has a criminal background that includes bank fraud charges). Nakoula somehow obtained 5 millions dollars to make the film, using his home as a location for shooting. The film's trailer premiered on Youtube in July, 2012 and didn't cause a stir at all. Only after 9/11/12, and with the newly revised trailer that was translated in Arabic, did an uproar initiate. Clearly, from having viewed the trailer, the film is overdubbed with lines of dialogue referring to Mohammed and a donkey as the "first Muslim animal" and much more. Mohammed is depicted with no undergarments, resting his head in a woman's netheregions and, well, you get the idea.

I can safely say from what I viewed that this film is a laughable travesty. It is obviously green-screened to death, is acted with the restraint of a 3rd grade school production, laughably and badly dubbed (you can clearly hear where the offending lines of dialogue are inserted) and shoddily made. I would hope that this garbage would not be taken seriously at all but any depiction of Mohammed is seen as an affront to Islam (the late Moustapha Akkad's film "Mohammed, Messenger of God" wen through great care to never show the Prophet, which is expected no matter how reverential the depiction). So should anybody care? I say no, but I am not the filmmaker who clearly made a film to offend, not provoke. That may be the difference in hindsight. When Martin Scorsese faced scorn and controversy with "The Last Temptation of Christ," he intended to make a spiritual film that was meant to question our own faith in the son of God - he made the film to provoke discussion, not to incite hatred and violent protests. Granted, "Last Temptation" had enormous protests outside movie theaters because it did not treat Jesus with reverence - it examined him as a fallible human being who had sex with Mary Magdalene (the latter being a temptation on the cross). In other words, not so divine. But there was no war, in the literal sense, that used the film to add fuel to the fire.

This is not the first time that a film caused Muslims to protest. The most extreme example may be Theo van Gogh, the director of a 2004 11-minute short film called "Submission,"the broadcast of the film which led to the assassination of the director by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim fundamentalist. The film itself deals with Muslim women who have been abused by men, instructed by way of Koranic interpretations. After van Gogh's death, there were fire-bombings of mosques and Muslim schools. Of course, if van Gogh had not made the film, he might still be alive. But he did make the film and it cost him his life for revealing the misogyny against Muslim women. Another controversial film was 2008's "Fitna," which depicts Mohammed with a bomb strapped on his head and, for literary comparisons, there is Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" (considered blasphemous by Muslims). "Satanic Verses" also caused controversy and some killings and attacks on various book publishers (as a result of an imposed fatwa that still stands to this day by the late Ayatollah Khomeini) forcing the author to be in hiding and under police protection for nine years. Mr. Rushdie has also gone on record to decry the trailer itself as "outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting."

With trouble and civil unrest brewing in the Middle East (not to mention a recent French magazine printing drawings of a naked Mohammed), maybe a film like "Innocence of Muslims" is not the right move. It had one screening in L.A. (under the title "Innocence of Bin Laden") and the protests seems to have largely been initiated by a Youtube trailer dubbed in Arabic, not the screening of the film itself (allegedly only ten people were in attendance). But if it caused no protest before, why did it cause protest after the embassy bombing? Are the filmmakers responsible for the violence, or should we not be blaming the bombers themselves? Why is a stupid film of this nature the brunt of all recent upheaval, and not the French magazine? And where does a filmmaker's responsibility lie when an actress named Cindy Lee Garcia, who worked on the film, has been receiving death threats and is currently suing the producer?

The message seems to be: ridicule or provocation induced by criticism of any Muslim teachings and the prophet Muhammad are not to be tolerated and can result in, gulp, death and destruction. Chilling thought.

Opening old wounds

THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(review from July, 2004)

At one time, I had found certain remakes fascinating. If I didn't, I wouldn't have seen Gus Van Sant's reprehensible "Psycho" or the abysmal redo of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." Remaking the John Frankenheimer classic, "The Manchurian Candidate," seems almost sacrilegous. Still, despite its many flaws, the Jonathan Demme remake has moments of terror and intense thrills but it is relatively uninspired.

The opening frames of "The Manchurian Candidate" are set during the Gulf War, where a group of soldiers play cards inside a tank (a group of songs and fade-outs signify a long period of time in the tank). Ben Marco (Denzel Washington) and Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) lead their unit to an ambush where they are attacked by helicopters. It is so chaotic that Marco passes out, unable to recall what happened. Years later, as he explains his story to a classroom of potential soldiers, he reminds them that despite the horror of war, a Congressional Medal of Honor is still worth the risk. The medal was won by Shaw, not Marco, who defended his troops in need. Now Shaw is up for a vice-presidential election, but he does not look like a man ready for politics - he mostly sits in hotel suites by himself and appears detached. Not your normal vice-presidential nominee.

By contrast, Marco is suffering from endless nightmares, usually one where his fellow soldiers are executed by Shaw. To keep from sleeping, Marco buys a lot of noodles and Nodoz. His apartment is always shown in disarray, packed with newspapers and clippings on the walls. After being reminded of his nightmare by one soldier, Melvin (a forceful Jeffrey Wright), Marco decides to seek the truth by asking Shaw what happened. Only the powers that be don't want him anywhere near Shaw, especially when Shaw's mother, Sen. Eleanor Shaw (Meryl Streep), wants Shaw to be president, by any means necessary. Meanwhile, Marco tries to piece the truth together, discovering that Manchurian Global, a worldwide corporation with ties to many powerful leaders, may have financially gained from the war. They may also be responsible for brainwashing soldiers, and perhaps they are seeking a "sleeper" to be in the White House.

If you have seen the original 1962 film, then a lot of this is probably very familiar. To be fair, Demme injects his own touches and the screenplay by Daniel Pyne and Dean Georgaris (based on George Axelrod's original script) injects a new threat over communism: large-scale corporations that fund wars. The problem is that the screenplay often aims to explicate scenes from the original rather than insinuate. The nightmare itself, which is frightening to watch, comes much too soon in the film. The ability by which soldiers are brainwashed is also revealed in tight close-ups of a medical procedure that would make doctors rather squeamish! Sometimes the film reaches for melodramatic, slightly overdone scenes such as Marco's retrieval of a chip in his skin, or the terminally overlong ending that aims for resolution rather than ambiguity. The beauty of the original "Candidate" is that it left so much to the imagination. Even one of the strangest scenes in cinema history with the original actors, Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh, proved why the film worked on your nerves - the paranoia and deterioration of political corruption certainly put me in a cold sweat through most of the movie.

Demme's version lack the original's paranoia - in many ways, this is just another anonymous political thriller with the benefit of superlative performances. Denzel has many great moments, especially his conversations with Raymond Shaw. And Liev Schreiber (who I hope will finally receive star recognition) is a standout as the oblique Shaw - his creepy smile at the end of the film is memorable. Kudos must also go to Meryl Streep (an actress I often dislike) playing the first truly bitchy, outspoken character in her whole career - she is also oblique and not as mannered as she usually appears. Jon Voight has a terrifically spry scene as another senator.

"The Manchurian Candidate" is worthwhile for its performances and for Demme's flashy direction and knowing sense of subjectivity. What it lacks is a genuine sense of purpose.

Excuse me, while I whip this out!

BLAZING SADDLES (1974)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Blazing Saddles" is not my favorite comedy by Mel Brooks. It is uneven and features an ending that takes us somewhere else, which may be the point. More importantly, it does not have the high belly laugh ratio of "Young Frankenstein," his most perfectly uproarious film. "Blazing Saddles" is still funnier and loopier than "High Anxiety" or "Silent Movie" and that is damn good enough.

Describing the plot of "Blazing Saddles" would be insane because I am not sure there is much of one. Bart (Cleavon Little) is a railroad worker who is forced, along with his crew, to sing the stereotypical song, "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" to appease some bigoted white men. The joke is they sing something else which doesn't appeal the white folks. Eventually, Bart is made sheriff of Rock Ridge due to a scheme by Attorney General Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman) so he can clear out the town (after all, in the Old West, who would want a black sheriff?) The scheme involves building a railroad through Rock Ridge and making a profit. With the help of womanizing, corrupt-to-the-core Governor William J. LePetomaine (Mel Brooks), this should be a cinch. Of course, the townsfolk eventually embrace Bart and his sidekick, the fastest gunfighter in the world, the Waco Kid (Gene Wilder).
At the time "Blazing Saddles" was readying for release, some studio execs scoffed at the racial epithets and the scatalogical humor, namely the famous farting in the campfire scene (and what would you do if you ate baked beans?) It is fascinating that Mel Brooks, who had final cut, got away with what he had. Today's audiences may not be receptive to the racial epithets, but who knows.

"Blazing Saddles" has some classic gags and some moments that will make you go, "huh?" One background gag includes a painting of a wedded couple with their backs turned in Korman's office. As my wife suggested, perhaps this was meant for a punchline that was never filmed. The ending initially left me perplexed years back - the camera pulls back to reveal that the whole movie is made in the Hollywood backlot followed by a tapdance number - and then I realized my counterproductive complaint. When Bart rides into town, Count Basie is playing with his orchestra. And there is a Warner Bros. wink to the Old Looney Tunes cartoons involving a candygram. This whole movie is not meant to just parody westerns - it is Mel Brooks searching for every hook, line and sinker to make us laugh at anything he throws at us. My absolute favorite moment is when the stupid, childlike Mongo (Alex Karras) punches a horse. And I adore Madeline Kahn's wonderful imitation of Marlene Dietrich singing "I'm Tired" (a song created for the film).

There is much to enjoy in "Blazing Saddles," including all the potshots taken at racist white people who are incredibly dumb in this film. I loved the chemistry between Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder, who are as engaging and fun to watch together as almost anything else they have ever done. For every gag that works, there is at least one that misfires (the Native American confronting a black family in a carriage is flat). Harvey Korman can also be a bit much at times and I will never understand the appeal of Dom DeLuise. Still, a frantic comedy of bad manners and bad form is all one should expect from Mel Brooks.