HELP WANTED: TARGET STORE CLEAN-UP BOY

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES (1991)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 I am sure I am in the minority when I declare how much I liked John Hughes'
"Career Opportunities," one of the last, if not the last, of the 1980's teen
comedies, from the age of Molly Ringwald and the Brat Pack. Apparently this
film had a multitude of problems getting released and even John Hughes had disowned it,
but that did not deter my reaction in any way. It is not up to the wild energy of "Sixteen Candles"
or the hard truths of "The Breakfast Club" (this one is directed by Bryan Gordon) but it has enough
laughs and comical innuendoes to warrant a mild recommendation. Heck, I do
recall Gene Siskel even liking it (Ebert abhorred it).

Frank Whaley plays Jim, a loser, a geek, a nerd, and a wannabe Ferris Bueller living in Monroe, Illinois. Jim is a con-artist, convincing the kids from the neighborhood that he is a wealthy businessman and entrepreneur. Truth is that Jim is unable to hold a job, having been fired from just about every business in town. His father offers him a deal: work at the Target store or go to work for his uncle. Jim chooses Target, relegated to night clean-up boy position at $4.44 an hour.

While maintaining janitorial duties at the store and generally goofing off, Jim discovers a rich "high-profile ingenue" in the store (played by the beautiful, certainly lusty Jennifer Connelly). They talk, bicker, and get to know each other over some corn dogs and other assorted meals Jim has prepared. Before you know it, Hughes introduces two burglars (Dermot Mulroney, Kieran Mulroney) who invade the store in a tired bit cribbed from "Home Alone."

It is the second half of the film that is ruined by these unfunny, stereotyped burglars and it probably doesn't help that Dermot was cast since he is one of my least favorite actors (the exceptions being that TV movie he did with Patricia Arquette and "Longtime Companion"). What works better are the brief roles by Noble Willingham as Connelly's father; John Candy's hilarious cameo as C.D., Jim's new boss; the always boisterous Barry Corbin as the town sheriff; and William Forsythe as the ponytailed janitor who hates slackers. If only these people had more screen time, particularly Willingham who is the apparent abusive single father of Connelly.

Despite one too many music montages and a sour climax, "Career Opportunities" is lots of fun thanks to Whaley's easygoing charm and appeal and some precious one-liners ("I did not know this was a hire-fire situation.") The film is mostly a showcase for Connelly, and she is a beauty indeed but lacking in the dramatic department. Still, she has fine chemistry with Whaley, and the music by Thomas Newman is bouncy and energetic. The film is not as bad as reputed to be, and certainly superior to most of the latter films by Hughes. Having been a janitor once myself, I can readily identify with Whaley's situation in this movie.

Star Wars is back, by way of Mickey Mouse

STAR WARS EPISODE VII?

By Jerry Saravia

Fan-created poster

Just when you thought you were safe from more constant revisions and technological advancements, "Star Wars" is coming back. Only this time, it is not yet another revised version of George Lucas' heavily revised "Star Wars" saga for Blu-Ray. It is actually a whole new Star Wars film, live action I might add and not animated like "The Clone Wars," set for release in 2015, about ten years since the last film "Revenge of the Sith." But that is not all. In the oddest bit of entertainment news since Prince changed his name to that crazy symbol or Bruce Campbell produced an "Evil Dead" remake, George Lucas has sold LucasFilm to Disney for 4.05 billion, and that includes all subsidiaries such as Skywalker Sound, LucasArts (creator of all video games) and LucasFilm Ltd. Apparently, he wants a new generation of filmmakers to take over the franchise, that is to write it and direct it as they see fit. Lucas's function will be to serve as creative consultant, and Kathleen Kennedy (longtime Lucas film producer) is now the newly assigned president of LucasFilm. This may come as a shock to Skywalking fans, especially when Lucas claimed that "Revenge of the Sith" was the last live-action "Star Wars" film in 2005. He also retired in early 2012 and said as part of his attack on nitpicky fans of the revised Holy Trilogy and the entire saga and a new "Star Wars" film - “Why would I make any more when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?”
Huh??? Is this Lucas' way of redeeming himself after making the much maligned prequels?

She is the "other"

In other news, again a bit unprecedented, Harrison Ford is reportedly "upbeat" about returning as the space pirate and scoundrel, Han Solo, according to an unspecified source for Entertainment Weekly. Harrison had stated innumerable times that he found Han to be a "thin character," as mentioned in his 1997 Barbara Walters interview where he promoted "The Devil's Own." He also wanted Han to die in "Return of the Jedi," which naturally never materialized. So what gives? Money, I imagine. Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill might also return as Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker, though whether they are full leading roles or extended cameos is unclear (it could be a Leonard Nimoy cameo a la J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"). If they all return, I would think the stories would take place at least a good thirty years after "Return of the Jedi." If not and the timeline is shortened, count on new actors being cast in these iconic roles (it has been reported that the characters are returning for Episode VII and screenwriter Michael Arndt, who wrote the Oscar-nominated "Little Miss Sunshine," is penning it). It is all speculation at this point.

After all this talk of an "Indiana Jones 5" for the last three years, it seems Disney is uninterested in the future adventures of, well, my favorite archaeologist adventurer and my favorite creation by Lucas. The plans have stalled for the swashbuckling adventure franchise, but who would have expected a new "Star Wars" film and from Disney no less? This sounds like a disturbance in the Force. 

A Stir of Hauntings and a dash of Hitch

WHAT LIES BENEATH (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Director Robert Zemeckis ("Back to the Future") describes the screenplay of "What Lies Beneath" as "written in the language of Hitchcock." I am not sure if that is as insulting as Gus Van Sant's abominable "Psycho" remake, but it comes close. Not only does such a statement make me want to vomit but it further illustrates how audiences today might be compelled to agree, since they will accept anything with two glamorous movie stars. Actually, "What Lies Beneath" is written in the language of "Scream" and every slasher flick post-"Halloween," and the truth is that all of those films are superior to this monotonous, suspenseless and incredibly silly thriller.

 Let's look at what lies beneath the episodic structure. The beautiful, luscious Michelle Pfeiffer plays Claire Spencer, the morose wife to Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford), a successful geneticist. They live in some Vermont country house by a lake, and their daughter has just gone away to college. Claire misses her tremendously and is beginning to feel the effects of loneliness and isolation, especially since her husband is working late hours. At home, she finds there are problems with the electrical outlets in the bathroom (well, she gets a little shock occasionally). Soon, she finds the front door to her house opens by itself. Then picture frames begin to fall by themselves. But wait!!! Who is the bearded gentleman living with his wife in the house next door? And could the wife have been killed by her husband? And is the possibly dead wife a ghost who is haunting Claire? And is this another remake of "Rear Window," but without Christopher Reeve?

So far, so good - this is a fine setup for a possibly supernatural thriller. And Pfeiffer plays her role straight, lending a sympathetic hand for this melancholy heroine. Is she seeing things, or is there really a ghost in the house? But oh my, does Zemeckis and writer Clark Gregg screw it up by installing one too many red herrings. If you are one of the unlucky few who saw the trailer for this movie, you know the inevitable denouement and everything that leads to it. Suffice to say, I will not disclose much more except to say that the setup is completely ruined and fabricated, leading to a hodgepodge of other movies entirely.

Basically, "What Lies Beneath" is a hybrid of Hitchcock, "Sixth Sense," "Stir of Echoes," "The Stepfather" and anything else you can think of. Ask yourself this one question: are we seeing a thriller, a drama about a potential tryst, a ghost story, the latest slasher picture, or all the above? Apparently, Zemeckis and Gregg have no idea so they copy and paste it all together hoping it will make sense and surprise audiences. No sale.

I must say that I enjoyed the climactic, tense bathtub scene (recalling "Fatal Attraction's" bloody climax) and the lovely Pfeiffer's performance who invests more weight in the role than is necessary. There is also James Remar as the suspicious, curt neighbor (worth mentioning because he gives the best performance in the film, and he also bears an uncanny resemblance to Harrison Ford's bearded Richard Kimble in "The Fugitive") Unfortunately, Ford is left in the sidelines, barely registering any chemistry with Pfeiffer, and director Zemeckis is intent on throwing in the "fake scares" cliche, one after another, not to mention the old "the killer is never really dead" syndrome. From Ford, Pfeiffer, and Zemeckis, all that lies beneath is a lack of purpose.

$ for dead bloodsuckers

VAMPIRES (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 James Woods is such a volatile, energetic performer that he somehow makes every film he's in his own, and does so by charging up the screen with tightly controlled rage and tension. The same cannot be said for the turgid, monotonous shenanigans of "John Carpenter's Vampires," a shallow film where Woods is reduced to a one-dimensional sideshow attraction.

"Vampires" is set in New Mexico, where Woods plays vampire hunter Jack Crow, whose mission is to search and destroy vampire nests in the countryside. He's assisted by an anonymous motley crew of professionals armed with crossbows, shotguns, and fishing lines (so they can drag the vampires out into the sun). Oh, and there's a priest who comes along to bless each burnt vampire corpse. The master vampire, Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) eludes them during one of their raids. As an act of revenge, he visits a party that the vampire hunters are at that same night and slaughters nearly everyone of them except for Crow and his partner (numbingly played by Daniel Baldwin). Crow is then hired by the Vatican to kill Valek and any other vampire nests that may have developed. In the meantime, Valek's mission is to find a cross that will enable vampires to walk the earth during the day.

"Vampires" could have been an old-fashioned B-movie with lots of gore and witticisms courtesy of Crow and his crew. Once the crew is vanquished, though, the movie loses focus and treads along cliched, charted territory. We get the hooker (Sheryl Lee) who's bitten by Valek and can telepathically anticipate his every move; the typical stake-in-the-heart theatrics (there must be more original methods of killing vampires); the naive priest who turns out to be heroic; and so on and so forth. As directed by Carpenter, this movie is sluggishly paced and completely devoid of humor or horror. There's also an anticlimactic ending that fails to deliver any thrills at all, surprisingly.

There are some pluses. For instance, when the vampires emerge from the ground (as opposed to coffins), it is spectacularly shot and very menacing. One can also savor the former "Twin Peaks" star, Sheryl Lee, who brings an element of empathy to her stereotypical hooker character - she's abused and slapped around by Jack and his sidekick in such a manner that you can't help but care for her. Griffith is perfectly cast as Valek, and he'd be great as Lestat ("Interview with the Vampire") if anyone cares to make another film version of Anne Rice's novels. I also enjoyed the musical score by Mr. Carpenter himself.

This pseudo-horror western is not the first of its kind. I fondly remember the cult film by director Kathryn Bigelow called "Near Dark," which also had a western setting and an interesting central relationship between a vampire couple. At least that movie moved along at a good pace. This one represents a new low in Carpenter's career - he's lost the element of surprise.

A sucky bloodsucker sport

VAMPIRES: LOS MUERTOS (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Piss poor in all departments, "Vampires: Los Muertos" is the unnecessary sequel to a movie that ran hot and cold for me, "John Carpenter's Vampires." A further undoing is the casting of Jon Bon Jovi, the lackluster singer of his terrible 80's band, as the resourceful vampire hunter in the James Woods vein. Problem is Bon Jovi is no James Woods and appears as a helping of moldy white bread with no sense of humor.

There is not much to be said for "Vampires: Los Muertos" - it is a slapdash affair with no style and not a whole lot of vampires either. Arly Jover (who was in the dreadful "Blade") is the main vampire lead but she doesn't get to do much except look animalistic and bare her fangs occasionally. Most of the vampires on screen disappear so quickly that there is no time invested in any of these random bloodsuckers.

The quixotic Natasha Wagner is a girl, infected by a vampire, who has been taking pills twice a day that help her maintain human instincts where she won't crave blood. There is also the Mexican kid from the sexed-up and frenetic "Y Tu Mama Tambien," Diego Luna, as an eager kid looking for a job, namely a vampire hunter. Darius McCrary is the black guy from Memphis who receives an oral treatment from a vampire that is hardly as salacious or violent as Coppola's "Dracula." And there is a priest whose intentions are questionable, specifically the location of a cross that vampires crave because it allows them to walk in the sunlight. Of course, Natasha's pills might work, too. Oh, the irony.

Tommy Lee Wallace took over directing duties from John Carpenter. Not a sound choice considering Wallace butchered sequels to "Halloween" and "Fright Night." Now he has further butchered "Vampires," the original film of which was merely so-so. I can only stand so many dissolves in a film before it becomes monotonous. This film es muerto on arrival.

Jamie Lee Curtis can't survive another sequel

HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION (2002)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia     
(Originally reviewed in August 9th, 2002)

It is one of my guilty pleasures to view the "Halloween" films, having seen all seven sequels to John Carpenter's original classic. I have not liked any of them, except for the chilling Rick Rosenthal sequel Number 2 and "H20." As all diehard devotees of the "Halloween" franchise can recall, the chilling 1981 sequel was set in a hospital where poor Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) was running from the Shape, Michael Myers to the rest of you. It was one of the few sequels that had the distinction of continuing the story from the same night where the original had left off. Now, Rick Rosenthal has reunited with Miss Curtis and the Shape for one more sequel. Is it a thrill? A delight? Not so. This latest sequel is not bloody bad, just more of the same, and with no attention paid to the most rudimentary character details that "H20" had.

Laurie Strode does return briefly for a fairly intense opening sequence featuring good old Mikey with the William Shatner face mask. After the first five minutes, the movie goes downhill. Apparently some show called "Dangertainment" will broadcast the comings and goings inside Mr. Myers' childhood home live on the Internet. The lead producer of the show (Busta Rhymes) loves kung-fu movies and is eager to scare the living daylights out of everybody, including the five or six (I lost count) high-school students invited to shoot their experiences inside the dreaded house with a digital camera. Before you can say "Blair Witch Project," there are numerous stabbings, decapitations, and oh just too many decapitations, and gallons of blood. There are the typical "Scream" one-liners uttered by emaciated, generic teenagers who should know better by now than to utter "Who's there?" Yes, there are the requisite sexual innuendos and make-out scenes, and before you know it, Michael Myers' white mask looms out of the shadows before someone gets hacked to death. I think I forgot to mention that Tyra Banks appears in this as well.

I am not sure what attracted me to seeing the latest offering from the Moustapha Akkad series except sheer curiosity (that and the brief appearance by Jamie Lee Curtis). Perhaps it is hope that this series can rise above the mediocrity and try something truly unique and really invoke the supernatural. Or maybe the thought that Michael Myers should simply retire. One decapitation is enough for me.

A whiz-bang superhero team

THE AVENGERS (2012)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 All you need to know about superheroes is that they have special powers that enables them to perform extraordinary abilities. I wish I could say that when you see one superhero movie, you have seen them all. Not quite the case with the Marvel superheroes on hand here. From Captain America to Hulk to Thor to Iron Man, this is the sweet desert of an epic movie many fans have been waiting for. It is that, and more.

The gung-ho, patriotic Captain America (Chris Evans) has been frozen in ice for 50 years and is thawed out to help form the superhero team, the Avengers initiative, thanks to the persuasive Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. Nick recruits other members, with the help of the formidable martial-arts expert and superspy Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), such as the reluctant Iron Man aka billionaire hotshot, Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), and the semi-reluctant Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) who is always angry but hasn't turned into the Hulk for about a year. The mighty Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is missing but not for long - he is searching for his adopted brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), a dangerous god from Asgard who wishes possession of the Tessaract, a glowing, impenetrable cube that allows the gods to travel from one dimension to the next. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is also on hand with his trusty bow and explosive-tipped arrows, but he ought to watch out for Loki's powerful scepter.

"The Avengers" gives us all the banter one might hope from these superheroes whose egos and personalities clash when they are in the same room. Thor fights Captain America and Iron Man while trying to capture Loki. Hulk and Thor also have their moment with giant green fists against a mighty hammer. When the Avengers are not fighting, they argue and try to one-up each other. Tony tries to get Bruce angry because he is "a big fan of the other guy." Tony also can't stand the "old man," that man being Captain America and his colorful outfit. Only Black Widow and Hawkeye seem to get along - they have a past history of being involved in minor political debacles, far removed from anything like gods, green-skinned monsters and alien ships.

The grand finale involving the aforementioned alien ships and alien beasties wearing visors and helmets felt a little off - who are these CGI-created hooligans from space? It felt a little like a hackneyed video-game in 3-D with all of these alien creatures falling into place a little too neatly. The focus on the story should have stuck with Loki, who manipulates others to do his destructive bidding early on. Could he not have done the same thing with our superheroes and turn them against each other? Still, despite various explosions of buildings and streets ripped apart like shredded paper (the comics featured just as much destruction), I cared about the superheroes enough to get through the calamity of it all. It is seemingly "Transformers"-type calamity, but with a lot more heart and more than one and a half dimensions. Michael Bay isn't half the director that newcomer film director Joss Whedon is.

Robert Downey, Jr. makes the most of the arrogant Tony Stark; Mark Ruffalo is an able Bruce Banner and impressive Hulk (the scene-stealer for sure); Jeremy Renner makes me root for his Hawkeye with his laser stare and archery skills; Scarlett Johannson (an actress I less than admire) gives us a whipsmart woman as Black Widow in this epic boys' tale, and Chris Evans is still the admirably old-fashioned Cap Man ("There is only one God, m'aam"). Tom Hiddleston is still the lecherous, Iago-type villain - displaying a tinge of regret about his estranged relationship with his hammer-loving brother. Two repartee scenes involving Loki and Tony Stark are about as engaging as one might expect. There is also a brief set of scenes involving Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg, who last appeared in "Thor"), the right-hand man to Nick Fury who wants his old Captain America trading cards to be signed by the man himself. It is moments like this, peppered throughout the film, that give it some soul, shape and dimension.

"The Avengers" is not the best superhero movie of all time (nor is it as grandly wondrous or enthralling as "Thor" or "Captain America") but it is a smart, snappy, rousing, occasionally lighthearted, furiously paced blockbuster film, giving comic-book fans and fans of these actors in particular a little bit of everything. These superegotistical heroes are not cardboard automatons - the actors give them humanity and individual personalities. And then they kick ass in the grand Marvel way.