Greed is legal

WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS (2010)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Oliver Stone's first and only sequel to his ferociously entertaining "Wall Street" from a quarter of a century ago is overlong, has a stoic leading man role, and has got a seemingly tacked-on ending.  "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps," however, does have enough bravura and tempestuous moments to make it adequately enjoyable.

Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) is released from prison after 8 years. In a comical scene of how times have changed, the "greed is good" icon is handed his mobile phone and a money clip "with no money in it." He walks out and thinks a limo is waiting for him - it is not. No one is waiting for Gordon Gekko, not even his estranged daughter. This is one of the few scenes in the film that evokes a morose and poignant moment of reflection for Gekko - what sort of life is he going to have now?

Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) is the aspiring, idealistic stockbroker who is engaged to Gekko's daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan). She runs a truth-telling blog called "The Frozen Truth" - sounds like Oliver Stone's career. It seems like a happy enough existence until the patriarchal Louis Zabel (Frank Langella, almost unrecognizable), who runs a firm that Jake works for, is facing a looming crisis - there are toxic mortgages that threaten his firm to the point of having to sell out for two dollars a share! Wall Street wolf lothario, Bretton James (Josh Brolin), is upping the stakes on Zabel by spreading rumors, and it leads to Zabel committing suicide. This leaves Jake in what I call "Labeouf crying mode" (one of the few flaws, for my tastes, in the last Indiana Jones flick) and seeking revenge. Jake also wants Winnie to get along with Gekko, and seeks Gekko's advice. And for a while, I was reminded of the crackling tension of the first "Wall Street." Will Jake succumb to Gekko's greedy, evildoer ways or will Gekko help Jake defeat the evil that Wall Street does, namely Bretton? Can Winnie be manipulated into signing the 100 million Swiss bank account over to her father?

Director Oliver Stone and writers Allan Loeb and Stephen Schiff opt for something else entirely. Jake is a do-gooder and not easily seduced - he wants to make a difference in the Dow Jones universe and supports Hydra Air, a process of clean air and renewable energy. Sensible, but hardly engrossing material. Gordon Gekko is not as malicious as he once was, but not nearly forgivable in his actions either. The whole banking crisis of 2008 is almost given a pass as if it did not outrage Ollie Stone one bit. And the film's sentimental conclusion might make you gag a little.

Shia LaBeouf is an actor I admire but I do think he is slightly miscast - he is not up to the task of taking on Michael Douglas's towering, impressionable, leathery appearance of Gordon Gekko. Josh Brolin might have been a better choice rather than playing a stock villain, though Brolin does it well. 94-year-old Eli Wallach as an aged banker ("It is the end of the world") still has his sly humor intact (love the whistles). Kudos also to Frank Langella as the angry leader of a firm in a world that has changed - he can't compete with the pace of "moral hazards." Carey Mulligan is relegated to two dimensions of a sourpuss - why on earth did she ever get involved with a stockbroker? Mulligan is a fascinating actress but it seems she has been directed to hold back too much.

Despite an uneven narrative structure where Gordon Gekko's character is left out of 2/3 of the film, "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is flashy, slickly made and gorgeously photographed - the city of New York has not looked this good in quite some time. The camera booming up and down those skyscrapers elevates the tension between the characters, though not necessarily the drama. I wanted more of the entertaining and tempestuous backroom meetings, more of Gekko scheming and less Labeouf strutting his way around Manhattan and its nightclubs or begging forgiveness from his girlfriend. When we briefly catch Charlie Sheen as Bud Fox, the one who got Gekko in trouble in the first film, we are reminded of what is missing in this sequel - urgency to the point of a panic attack. That is what we felt in late 2008, and that is not what we feel in this movie.

No Bruises on this Dead Man

BRUISER (2000)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

George Romero's filmography runs between his never-ending "Living Dead" series and the occasional non-"Dead" horror film or even more dramatic picture like the fabulous "Knightriders." Yet his best film, "Martin," is seemingly forgotten and it is his most memorable and humanistic film. "Bruiser," a Canadian film that went straight to DVD, is one of Romero's worst - a slapdash affair that has about as much meat in its bones as a rotting zombie does.

Henry (Jason Flemyng) works for a fashion magazine called Bruiser. His boss, Milo (Peter Stormare), is such a prick that he feels the need to expose it during a meeting (I kid you not). Milo treats his employees with disdain and his wife (Leslie Hope) with contempt. Henry is treated even worse by his annoying, money-addicted wife (Nina Garbiras) who calls him a loser. Even the poodle is somewhat demanding of Henry. What is he to do? Henry contemplates making his violent fantasies come true, including pushing a female passenger out of his way when entering a train! And something excites Henry when he hears a suicide on a radio program. And then, Henry becomes a faceless monstrosity when a white mask seems permanently etched on his face, or is it?

"Bruiser" has got a great premise but Romero is not the right director for this - one can only imagine what Roman Polanski could've managed with the material. What could've been a psychological study with telling details of today's corporate greed overtaking everyone's sensibilities is lost and eradicated for standard revenge fare. Henry decimates everyone who has bullied him and called him a loser but there is nothing to latch on to here - the character is faceless when the film begins or, more appropriately, bland so there is no sympathy, no humanity to build on. He is characterless, bloodless and quite boring before he acquires this blank mask, and the actor does nothing to lessen the enervating feeling.

Leslie Hope brings some measure of credibility to her long-suffering character, and she feels a smidgeon of sympathy for Henry (although I can't imagine why). Peter Stormare brings full-throttle madness to Milo, a cheating, despicable character who is not so different from the Satanic film director he played in "8mm." On the opposite end of decent actors is Nina Garbiras who is so one-dimensional that it is hard to care about her eventual demise; sorry, "spoiler-alert," but you see it coming. Tom Atkins walks through the movie as a detective and, yep, that is all he does, walk through it with indifference.

I can't fathom why Romero turns a compelling idea into a slasher picture. After all the bodies pile up and we get one of the most bizarre costume parties I've ever seen (replete with deadly lasers and performance by the Misfits), there is nothing left in "Bruiser" to care about. It is pointless, directionless and lacks the social commentary stinging-ness of Romero's earlier pictures. And the ending will leave you hootering and hollering and for all the wrong reasons.

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.