Romero's Limp Walking Dead

DAY OF THE DEAD (1985)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Day of the Dead" is considered the least of the "Night of the Living Dead" series and, though it is no great shakes, it has its fill of claustrophobic zombie thrills that have made the first two "Dead" film hallmarks of the genre. Yes, it does lose its marbles and has no real human interest in its characters but the feeling of claustrophobia, a major component of these pictures, is omnipresent.

This time, the zombies have taken over America, parading throughout every town. An underground facility, housed by military men and scientists, have captured some of these zombies. The intention of the scientists is to discover what makes these zombies tick - why do they feel the craving to eat humans? One doctor (always covered in blood-splattered lab coats) is particularly intrigued by one zombie, whom he names Bub (Howard Sherman). Bub learns to look at the pages of a Stephen King book and put on headphones so he can listen to a Sony walkman! Although this subplot merits some interest, director George Romero seems less interested in the ironies present with a human using a zombie as a guinea pig.

Instead Romero focuses on some truly dull stereotypes who simply mark time. The head of the decreasing military group is tough-guy Rhodes (Joseph Pilato), who feels it is a waste of time to experiment with these zombies - just shoot them all in the head. He also wishes to kill Sarah (Lori Cardille), a female scientist, if she does not comply with his orders. Sarah hopes that they can discover some cure, especially with any human that gets bitten, but it is a hopeless cause. And so most of "Day of the Dead" focuses on the strategies between the doctors and the macho military types until we get our money's worth with a typically gory last half-hour where all the zombies chomp their way through most of the cast.

"Day of the Dead" is not much fun to sit through nor are the characters very appealing. Yet the movie has the claustrophobic atmosphere of the original film, essentially an enclosed setting where there is no escape. In the original "Dead" film, it was an abandoned house in the middle of the countryside. In the numbing "Dawn of the Dead," it was a huge shopping mall. Here, the underground caverns enhance the creep factor. It's just that I barely cared for any of the people occupying those caverns.

A MEAN Sevauri

DAY OF THE DEAD (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Before anyone questions my positive rating of the remake of a George Romero zombie spectacle, let me clarify my view on zombies. I love Romero's early "Dead" series, including "Night of the Living Dead," the granddaddy of all zombie films and the scariest. I also enjoyed Zac Snyder's fast-paced and quite scary remake of "Dawn of the Dead," which means that, yes, I do find zombies running after your brains quite scary and nightmarish. The slow, snail pace that early zombies carried on, meaning walking and not running, is still frightening. Having said all that, this alleged remake of Romero's "Day of the Dead" is a better film all around, tighter and scarier and filled with a doomsday scenario that will seem dated to some but is no less relevant. Sacrilege, I know, but I was never a big fan of Romero's "Day of the Dead."

The movie begins with a mysterious flu-like virus (not the H1N1 type, I am afraid) that causes the military to quarantine the town where it has started. Yeah, it is a flu alright, the kind that kills you and then turns you into a zombie with truly ravaged, bubbly skin! Mena Sevauri may as well be called Meana Sevauri as a soldier who runs over her zombiefied mother without caring in the slightest! Ving Rhames appears briefly, sadly, as a soldier, I think, who becomes zombiefied (and does not do a reprise of the character he played in "Dawn of the Dead," probably because he was killed in the end credits). That leaves us with the host of "America's Got Talent," Nick Cannon, as a tough soldier who is eager to kill all the zombies as if they were playing a video game! Eventually, this all leads to a military base and a silo that echoes Romero's original. And I forgot to mention the unlikable radio host who is holed up in his control room, smoking his life away and babbling about how the government covers up such quarantines.

"Day of the Dead" has less than memorable characters overall, though I like Cannon and Sevauri who are appealing enough on screen that they won't make you gag. There is also the vegetarian soldier that becomes a zombie and Sevauri tries to protect him because he is a "good" zombie. Ick! But this movie doesn't get mired with the talkiness of Romero's film that featured characters I cared far less about than in this film. There are occasional pauses before the zombies get revved up and start attacking. It is a rollicking, sweat-inducing, intensely gory ride of a movie, much like its remake counterpart, "Dawn of the Dead." On that level, check it out. It won't resonate like Romero's films but this film can stand on its own for modern apocalyptic fervor.

It is a Maxi-Pad Drag

DRAG ME TO HELL (2009)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Drag me out of this movie. Sam Raimi's horror-comedy "Drag Me to Hell" puts more spin into horror than the comedy, which would be acceptable had the horror been something more than a vomitous creature and a bland, real-estate heroine with lots of fire and brimstone special- effects. And for comedy, well, we have vomit, worms and a mean goat! These are traditional Raimi touches but they are not very hellishly funny.

Alison Lohman is Christine Brown, a bank loan officer who denies an old Gypsy woman an extension on her house (timely topic indeed). Needless to say, the old Gypsy woman doesn't take this very well after she tries to bite her and beat her to a pulp in a parking garage! (Hey, don't shame a Gypsy who begs on her knees.) Unfortunately, Christine has been cursed by this ravaged, cretinous woman with the help of a coat button! How apropos yet Christine is not prepared for the torment and physical pain she will endure. We are talking about demonic shadows that creep around during the day and at night, violent dreams that involve the Gypsy woman vomiting ungodly things into Christine's mouth, flies that try to penetrate her skin, nosebleeds that lead to spraying people with blood, and an assortment of other tortures from Raimi's Evil Dead arsenal.

Unfortunately for us, none of this is any bloody fun. Lohman is so fluffy and blandly inconsequential an actress that she would make white bread moldy by just looking at it. Some early scenes with her boyfriend (Justin Long, unconvincing as a professor) show promise, especially when we learn that her boyfriend's mother disapproves of her. And there is some compassion developed early on about her promised job as an assistant manager that feels genuine. Raimi (who wrote this film) abandon all hope of a strong character study for the sake of aimless bloody thrills and chills. Lohman emotes a singular gaping expression every time she is frightened or thrown around like a rag doll (only her scene at a graveyard seems to elicit more of a Bruce Campbell wickedness than anything else in the movie). Raimi amps up the soundtrack with creaky noises and a chorus of screeching sounds, but to what avail when we could care less about Christine?

"Drag Me to Hell" aims to be an "Evil Dead"-type film but it lacks thrust and purpose and a better lead. Bruce Campbell in the "Evil Dead" pictures was in on the joke but he also made us watch and recoil at everything he encountered - he and Raimi made more inspired, inventive horror films that became Three-Stooges-like cartoons. Lohman also makes one recoil but we quickly lose interest in a largely unsympathetic and witless character (I will not describe what happens to a certain pet). I am all for a Raimi horror pic that abounds with bad taste and wicked humor. This is the first time from Raimi that I was only left with a bad taste.

Heartbroken Angel in L.A.

SOME GIRL (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally written in 2000)

Sometimes I will walk into a video store and find an obscure film that never got anywhere or got much distribution, yet managed to find its way into a video store like Blockbuster. There are two major films I can think of that are not talked about much or receive any merit. There was the delightful Paul Mazursky comedy "Next Stop, Greenwich Village," and the far more obscure "Crooked Hearts." "Crooked Hearts" amazingly never attracted any attention at all, despite a cast that includes Juliette Lewis, Peter Coyote, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Noah Wyle, among others. Sure enough, I found another film on the video shelves that I never heard of called "Some Girls" (also known as "Men," 'Some Girl," and "Girl Talk"). I was immediately interested because of the cast, and of course Juliette Lewis is in it. What a surprise to discover a fitfully good film that no one ever heard of! "Men" was shown at the Los Angeles Independent Film Festival where it won an Audience Award. It never actually got distribution, but it is now on video.

Marissa Ribisi in "Some Girls"

"Men" stars Marissa Ribisi as Claire, a red-haired girl who drinks heavily with her friends at singles clubs (though it mostly looks like an unpopulated bar). Claire had just got dumped and gets into a bitter mood, ignoring her brothers and family. Her friends include April (Juliette Lewis) who sleeps around and expects to be picked up by her friends the morning after, the punk rocker Jenn (Pamela Segall) who has theories on sexual practices, and the bartender Neil (Michael Rapaport), April's semi-boyfriend who is always ignored by her. There is also Claire's brother, Jason (Giovanni Ribisi), a seemingly nerdy, vivacious guy who wants a date with the reluctant Jenn.

"Men" is written by Marissa Ribisi (Giovanni's sister) and Brie Shaffer, and they pay special close attention to Claire and April. If nothing else, this film should have been called "Women," as the women are really the ones who dominate. "Some Girls" (the video title) detracts from the film's emotional moments - this is not just another twentysomething, Generation X programmer with bland stars from "Dawson's Creek." At least, these two women possess some integrity.

Claire is the focus of the film, and her distraught emotions are based on relationships with guys who find her too weird but love her curly red hair. She meets one guy at a magazine stand, Chad (Jeremy Sisto), who loves her hair and finds her "intriguing." Of course, everyone warns Claire that any guy named Chad is bound to be trouble.

April supposedly abhors men, and is drawn to Neil's kindness and compassion. Still, she feels the need to have one-night stands and hurts everyone who gets in her way.
If "Men" sounds mediocre and a time-waster based on its scantly told story and largely underdeveloped characters, then I would not recommend it. However, I must confess that I enjoyed it. Giovanni lends the film a quietly erratic energy whenever he is on screen - he gets all the best lines. I also enjoyed watching short-haired Juliette Lewis (finally a good role since "The Evening Star") and the lovely, sweet presence of Marissa Ribisi - they make their characters human and heartfelt. The sight of Ribisi wearing angel wings lends the film a certain kind of poignancy.

"Men" does not feel complete, and has too many characters who drift around without any insight into their nature (Pamela Segall's Jenn is one character I wanted to know more about). Still, "Men" is a sweet, innocent, droll film that merits a little more attention than it got.

When Dinosaurs Bored the Earth...

JURASSIC PARK III (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The ads proclaim that this is not just another a walk in the park. Indeed, it is in fact a well-traveled path through the same damn park. Do not expect the filmmakers of this latest snooze to know what it means to entertain the audience. One, twice, maybe. The third time is not the charm. The diamond should be cut ever so delicately so that it can still sparkle. Here, it is more like a piece of charcoal.

Let's consider the premise of this latest sequel. A kid is left alone in a Costa Rican island known as Site B or, to Jurassic fans, Isla Sorna. Dr. Grant (Sam Neill), a survivor of the original "Jurassic" film, is persuaded by a rich businessman, Paul Kirby (William H. Macy) and his wife, Amanda (Tea Leoni), to go on a tour of the island which happens to be infested with dinosaurs. This is no ordinary tour since it turns out that the kid who is HOME ALONE IN ISLA SORNA happens to be related to the Kirbys. Now Grant must confront those sneaky velociraptors and other dangerous breeds of dinosaurs but since he has field experience, he should have no problem. Only the Kirbys and the other members of the tour (including Michael Jeter in a brief role who brings some inkling of humor) are what Jeff Goldblum's Dr. Malcolm in "The Lost World" referred to as "fruitcakes."

That brief premise is a basic concept that can be described as a pitch to a Hollywood studio executive. It is not the basis for a movie. It is just an idea...but what else is there? Not much except countless scenes of dinosaur carnage, loud Dolby-ized roars, hums and thumps, Tea Leoni overexemplifying her screams and that is it. Some brief mention of genetic engineering holds some interest but hardly enough since it is barely mentioned again.

Joe Johnston ("The Rocketeer") takes over the directing chair but you, sir, are no Steven Spielberg. Spielberg knew how much to show on screen and when to aim for some brief over-the-top thrills. He also had the gift for imbuing us with giddiness and a sense of wonder whenever a dinosaur popped up on screen. Johnston, however, overdirects to the hilt as if he was back in "Jumanji" terrain and he has a less than capable editor at the helm (where is Michael Kahn when you need him?) Thus, the film feels disconnected and fruitless in the second half as it shows a dinosaur attack, one-dimensional characters bickering, another attack, more bickering, etc. In the last half-hour, the movie seems to have one too many climaxes and never exactly arrives at a conclusion. Monotony sets in early and it becomes a chore to sit through the movie, even at a seemingly painless 90 minute running time.

The first two "Jurassic Parks" were mindless monster movies to be sure but they at least had a central theme and some sense of purpose. The first film was about the danger of meddling with nature and packaging something unique to the masses - it was a modern-day "Frankenstein" tale. The second film had a more ecological theme, and an understanding of how animals nurture and care for their young. This movie (not based on any novel by Michael Crichton) is about nothing. There is no theme, no sense of purpose and little in the way of ingenuity except to show how life-threatening it is to be trapped in an island of untamed dinosaurs. Why are we back at Isla Sorna, the same island from the last picture? Why not take the dinosaurs to New York City to be exhibited only to then run rampant around the city? A more modern approach to "King Kong" would have ended the series with a bang rather than a whimper. And why leave Laura Dern hanging in a thankless cameo?

"Jurassic Park III" has one or two scary sequences that recall the thrill and intensity of the first film. It is also modest fun for a while seeing William H. Macy maintain a straight face throughout. Still, other actors are left to appear as gaping idiots particularly Leoni, who grates the nerves, and Sam Neill who seems to be coasting by with nary a trace of the humor or pathos he brought to the original. In short, this is a soulless, joyless movie bereft of three-dimensional characters or a strong, compelling story or theme. It is no walk in the park.

Not much bite, not much soul

THE LOST WORLD (1997)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Steven Spielberg is one of the best action directors in the world and his first dinosaur epic, "Jurassic Park," was one of his most exciting since "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Having said that, the last thing we would expect from Spielberg is a mildly exciting, occasionally mediocre dinosaur epic and that is what "The Lost World" is, an uneven but often entertaining sequel to the number one box-office monster in history.

Chaos scientist Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) is back chasing away dinosaurs on Isla Sorna, a mountainous island full of redwood trees and vines, also known as Site B. This is the place where the dinosaurs were supposedly bred before being sent to the island of Jurassic Park in the original - all of this is explained by Richard Attenborough reprising his role as John Hammond in a quick cameo (You may also notice that the tormented kids from the original, Joseph Mazello and Ariana Richards, show up for an unnecessary cameo as well). Malcolm is astounded by this secret and especially that a group has been sent to photograph and study the creatures at the site, including his paleontologist girlfriend, Sarah (Julianne Moore). Malcolm runs off to save her amid all those rampaging T-rexes, quick velociraptors, stegosauruses, and numerous other mammals. Quick question: if everyone knew how dangerous the closely guarded theme park of Jurassic Park was, why would anyone want to come to an island full of dinosaurs on the loose? One answer: money.

"The Lost World" has some spectacular action sequences, especially the scene where two T-rexes throw a trailer halfway off a cliff leaving the group hanging for their lives and Sarah caught in a glass spider web - it is hair-raising, thrillingly edited and typically vintage Spielberg. This is what we came for - the vicarious thrills and chills of dinos making their way through the screen stomping and chomping humans. What's missing this time, though, is a sense of mystery and, surprisingly, a real sense of adventure. The digital dinosaur effects are superb yet they somehow seem old-hat - almost everything in Hollywood entertainment is digitized so that the thrill of seeing real dinosaurs is somehow gone. "Jurassic Park" was great entertainment - this movie falls short of being just good entertainment. It also feels a little overbearing and monotonous at times, and since there's not much of a story or real characters to identify with, we are left watching a soulless monster movie with some doses of black humor to compensate for a couple of dull stretches. An example of good black humor is the grand finale where the T-rex runs loose in San Diego terrorizing all the citizens in their swimming pools, video stores and buses. It's fun for a while but joyless in execution - Spielberg doesn't take it over the edge as you would expect him to.

As written by David Koepp, the characters are less defined than in the original. Jeff Goldblum has more fun with his part largely because he has the lead role, however, he resorts to basic running and jumping at the end - leave it to Spielberg to explain the significance of Malcolm's black daughter who comes along for the ride. An interesting character is the bald big-game hunter who wants to capture and shoot T-rexes and he's played by Peter Postelthwaite ("The Usual Suspects"). But, again, his character is disappointingly thin and ill-defined leaving his conquest, at best, as anticlimactic. Ditto the poorly written role of Arliss Howard as Hammond's son who wants to exploit the dinos in a theme park. Julianne Moore has a nice rapport with Goldblum and I wish there were more scenes between them but Spielberg is just interested in bloody carnage.

"The Lost World" is hardly a total washout but it is not among Spielberg's better films. It spurts some funny, fast and furious moments but nowhere near the level of "Jurassic Park." The action doesn't creep up on you and make you shiver - great Spielberg action is so thrilling, it scares you and makes you want to grab your seats or the person next to you. "The Lost World" is a real workout and it makes you sweat, but it does not make you wince.

If you only see one film this year, don't make it this one!

NATIONAL LAMPOON'S MOVIE MADNESS aka GOES TO THE MOVIES (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Comedy is subjective. Some people find Mel Brooks hysterical, others not so much. But I cannot imagine a single soul finding anything of comedic value in "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" which is the worst comedy I've ever seen. Let me make that painstakingly clear once more: it is the WORST COMEDY I'VE EVER SEEN. EVER. In the history of the comedy genre, nothing is WORSE than this movie. NOT ONE!

Let me make things even clearer. When a studio bankrolls a movie project, usually there is hope that money will be made, even if the film is garbage. However, I do honestly believe, having read several behind-the-scenes books on filmmaking, that everyone involved does give it their best shot and hopes for the best. I do not believe this was the case with "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies," not at all. I don't believe that directors Henry Jaglom (who has made good films) and Bob Giraldi had any intention of making anything worthwile. I will go so far as to say that if anyone ever directly asked Jaglom or Giraldi of their intentions with this film, they would concur that, yes, they intended to make a worthless pile of horse manure with extra steam rising from it to stink up any theatre showing it within a five mile radius.

But let's give a brief rundown of everything that goes wrong from the start. The opening segment entitled "Personal Growth" (and presumably a parody of "Kramer vs. Kramer") has Peter Riegert as a corporate lawyer who throws his wife out of the house (thanklessly played by Candy Clark). The reason? It is time for her to grow, although they are reasonably happily married. The movie sets off on the wrong foot of cinematic ineptitude when Riegert packs up a suitcase for his wife, with everything she presumably owns, including her Tampax. Everything just barely fits in the suitcase. How is that funny? Riegert doesn't fret over not being able to close the suitcase or drop it with everything flying out of the suitcase like a bomb went off - he succeeds admirably. What if the suitcase was the size of a room and everything she owned just barely fit in there (like her wardrobe?) Or what if he thought so little of her that he packed a wallet-size suitcase that just barely fit her toothbrush?

This segment plays it straight with no jokes at all, none. An apartment full of plants is not funny. A child left behind on a fire engine is not funny. A woman kidnapping a boy in a New York City bus is not funny. The movie assumes such situations are funny without benefit of a single punchline or joke. The best it can do is to show big breasts and that, my friends, is not automatically funny. There are more laughs when Dustin Hoffman was trying to make French Toast in "Kramer vs. Kramer" than in this segment.

The next parodic segment is even worse. I'll only mention the second segment because I could not make it through the third. It is called "Success Wanters" (presumably a parody of Harold Robbins and TV's "Dallas") and it has a stripteaser (Ann Dusenberry) who is raped by businessmen who yell something along the lines of "Butter Bang!" Yes, Virginia, she is raped with sticks of butter! Sorry Miss Virginia! And to make matters worse, she takes over the margarine business (!) by giving head to the head of the margarine corporation (Robert Culp). Eventually this all leads to tasteless one-liners involving incest, heavy bracelets that can cause turbulence in a plane (Don't ask) and margarine sticks that are dropped on the floor of the margarine plant and put back on the conveyor belt for consumption. Yeah, funny.

"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" is more than just a painfully unfunny comedy - it made me sick and sad for the human race that such garbage ever got recorded on celluloid. It gave me pain to watch it, and left me in such despair that I could not suffer through another segment of this shite (even the knowledge that Richard Widmark appears in the third segment makes me sadder). There are only three other films that I've ever stopped watching because of such pain - this National Lampoon film can safely be added to the list. This is not a recommendation.