Interview with Pat Tallman: Actress, Stuntwoman, Philanthropist

INTERVIEW WITH PAT TALLMAN: ACTRESS, STUNTWOMAN, PHILANTHROPIST

BY JERRY SARAVIA

Pat Tallman as Barbara in the vastly underrated Night of the Living Dead (1990)

Tallman as a demon in Army of Darkness (1993)

Pat Tallman in her film debut, 1981's Knightriders

I first took notice of Pat Tallman when I saw the 1990 remake of "Night of the Living Dead." In the film, she plays Barbara, Johnnie's seemingly mousy sister who is attacked by zombies, survives, flees to a seemingly empty house and survives more zombie attacks. Unlike Judith O'Dea's Barbra character from Romero's 1968 original, Tallman's Barbara survives and becomes a warrior, a heroine who will help fight the fight - namely to get rid of all zombies. It is a stunning transformation and her character is possibly the first of its kind in the zombie genre, a precursor to Danai Gurira's Micchone in TV's "The Walking Dead."

Of course, "Night of the Living Dead" is not all she is known for. Tallman is known in the sci-fi world for not only her role as Lyta Alexander in TV's "Babylon 5," but also multiple roles in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" where she played Nima, Nurse Tagana and a weapons officer. She also played a Romulan, the evil Kiros and a security officer in "Star Trek: The Next Generation." She was also memorable as a she-demon fighting Bruce Campbell's Ash in "Army of Darkness."
   

Pat Tallaman as a Romulan/Alien in Star Trek: The Next Generation

When Pat isn't in the Trek or Babylon universe or fighting zombies (especially in 2009's "Dead Air"), she performs stunts and has done several (44 different credits) in everything from "Creepshow 2" to "Long Kiss Goodnight" to the first two "Austin Powers" movies to "Jurassic Park" (Laura Dern's stunt double) as well as "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, "Star Trek: Voyager" and the film "Star Trek Generations." And when she isn't acting or performing stunts, Pat Tallman is highly dedicated to helping abused kids in a charity called Penny Lane, a charity first introduced in the 1960's by Evalise Markovitz. Pat's own program that she began a decade ago is called "Be A Santa," which helps kids from Penny Lane celebrate Christmas.  


1.)  I couldn't help but notice that you started out acting before doing stunts. Why choose the dangerous, physical world of stunts?

Pat Tallman: It was something I fell into. Budum bump.

I always wanted to be Errol Flynn. I had taken fencing lessons in college and loved stage combat. When I got to New York, I took period sword technique classes, as a hobby. I met some stunt people in those classes and it all went downhill from there!   
 
And usually the way it is with stunts is you kind of apprentice with people that are already doing it. They teach you what you need to do, and if it looks like you show promise & can do the work & have the right attitude, then they'll give you more small jobs. I started with the soaps, which didn't have major stunts because of the budgets and how quickly they shot them. Stunts would mostly involve falling & small fights & things you normally wouldn't want to do with the actors. That's the kind of thing we did and I was very good at fights. Because it's choreography like with dancing. I doubled Tina Louise from Gilligan's Island in a really terrible movie called 'The Pool' falling out a balcony. And I had the right height and color to double for her. It was really exciting. I remember I had to just topple over this balcony & I fell into boxes, because it wasn't that high of a fall. 20, 30 feet. I remember the stunt guys being very indulgent and sweet with me.   
 
2.) When you are doing stunts, does the film director reach out to the stunt coordinator or, in your case, the stuntperson for the kind of stunt they want performed? Or do you make the suggestions, or is it all dependent on the director?

P.T.: The stunt coordinator, the producers and director figure out what they want (and can afford). Then the stunt coordinator communicates that to his stunt people.

Pat Tallman in 1997's Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery

3.) You've acted in a bit part in addition to doing stunts for "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery." Which do you prefer, acting or stunts?

P.T.: I wasn’t acting in a bit part. It was a stunt job. Because I can act as well, I was very suited for this job.
I did what I wanted to do as a stunt woman. I am looking forward to acting and producing now.
 
4.) I suppose this is a tough question but do you think stuntwomen get a bad rap, or is it any stuntperson? Having interviewed another stuntwoman, Leslie Hoffman, I wonder how often do you get credit for the stunts or is there more than one occasion where you are uncredited, as in "Long Kiss Goodnight" or "Addams Family Values?"

P.T.: I don’t think it’s a question of a ‘bad rap.’ The SAG contract states that stunt credits are at the producer’s discretion and you know that going in. Folks go to the movies or watch their favorite shows not because they want to see a stunt double. They want to see their favorite actor doing exciting things.

5.) I've read a book called "Burns, Falls and Crashes: Interviews with Movie Stunt Performers." Any stunt that you absolutely will not do, such as fire?

P.T.: I won’t do what I do not think I am qualified to do. I don’t know why you say fire. I am experienced in burns and have done them. I will not do motorcycles, since I have no experience with them.

Pat Tallman as Lyta in Babylon 5

6.) In terms of acting roles, what is your favorite role, the one closest to you?

P.T.: Lyta and Barbara are both very fond memories. I am very proud of my stage work such as Rosalind in As You Like It with the Riverside Shakespeare Company in NYC.

7.) Now that you have worked with George Romero a couple of times, any chance you might appear in another "Dead" film? (they apparently using some of the same cast members, including Tony Todd, from the 1990 remake for yet another remake).

P.T.: No. I don’t ever go backwards. Been there, done that.

8.) Is there a role you would love to play, something literary or otherwise?

P.T.: I am looking forward to what comes and what I can create as a producer.
 
9.) I like to ask about charities. How did the Penny Lane charity come about?

P.T.: Penny Lane is a wonderful group home for kids who are in serious need. It really spoke to me. These kids have no one and next to nothing. They are very troubled, difficult kids. This became a passion for me: to help these children. I love the people at Penny Lane who work with these kid every day.

You can read about it here http://www.pennylane.org on my site at http://www.patriciatallman.net and on my social media. Thank You!

Patricia Tallman's Facebook page
Twitter: @patriciatallman
Google Plus: +PatriciaTallman

Darth Vader turns to Evil

STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Original Review from 2005

 "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" is an unpretentious, darkly humorous ride, and quite possibly the most significant "Star Wars" film since "Return of the Jedi." It is chock full of glorious action setpieces, double crosses, deceit, some political mumbo-jumbo (no filibustering this time), and plenty of lightsaber battles (oh, and Jar Jar Binks who doesn't utter a single word). As eye-poppingly entertaining as it is, it sets a more sinister tone for the series, ending more on a bang with a cold heart than a joyous, heartwarming one. In other words, this film comes as close to the spirit of "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" than either of the last two prequels.

Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is as reckless as ever as the Jedi who longs to be a Jedi Master. In the opening sequence, Anakin and his master, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor), are trying to rescue the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from the clutches of a Sith lord, Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), and some evil, skeletal droid commander named General Grievous who seems ready to cough up a lung. Count Dooku, as you may recall from "Episode II," was the Emperor's right-hand man and apprentice. After Dooku's brief exit, General Grievous seems to be the last hope for the Emperor in his desire for the Sith to rule the galaxy. Or so we think.

Meanwhile, Anakin is dealing with joining the Jedi Council and wondering if he should spy on the Chancellor. Naturally, the Chancellor wants Anakin to spy on the Jedi Council. There is also the growing anger within Anakin, fully exploited by the Chancellor who, in a riveting scene, describes the seduction of the Dark Side of the Force. The lure, the seduction is there, but will Anakin turn and believe the Chancellor's Jedi conspiracy theory? And what of Anakin's secret marriage to Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman), who is now pregnant with twins? Romance, marriage, Luke and Leia! A Jedi craves not these things.

Unless you live in a galaxy, far, far away, you know very well that Anakin Skywalker will become Darth Vader, the Dark Lord of the Sith who ruled the galaxies and surrounding systems in the original trilogy. It is the transition that we are interested in, the eventual transformation into the dark helmeted, leather-strapped, machine-breathing Darth Vader, and I am happy to say that it works beautifully. George Lucas handles it as well as one can imagine, and Hayden Christensen brings that seething, slow boil to the character in a startling way. Though the actual turn to the Dark Side is somewhat abrupt, what follows is not. We see a hooded Anakin marching to his own beat as he helps destroy all the Jedi knights, fearing they will destroy the Senate and the Chancellor (a misguided fellow, this Anakin is). His capricious longing to be the most powerful Jedi ever is evident, and we watch with uncomfortable ease as he decimates all the Jedi without mercy.

So what else can you expect in "Episode III" besides Anakin's gradual transformation? There are lightsaber battles galore, including General Grievous armed with four lightsabers! Obi-Wan riding a huge lizard while the Clone Wars are fought! The wise Yoda rubbing his head as he strongly feels the disturbance in the Force, though this little green gremlin is still aces with a lightsaber. Samuel L. Jackson's Mace Windu fully engaged with his purple lightsaber. There is also the dastardly, powerful Emperor whose verbal tongue, corroded with the Dark Side, is as consuming as his knowledge of the Force. And there are the lava lakes of Hell, or more appropriately Mustafar, where Anakin faces Obi-Wan in "Lord of the Rings" fashion. We are talking the depths of Hell here, folks, and even less inviting than Mordor. We are talking about the declining and eventual eradication of goodness of Anakin Skywalker.

Being a minor fan of the last two prequels (oh, heavens, don't say it is so Jerry. You actually liked "The Phantom Menace"? Hate mail to be delivered by torpedo), "Revenge of the Sith" certainly delivers with a major bang, and writer-director Lucas has pulled out all the stops for a grand finish. Every sequence is jaw-dropping in its visual imagination of new worlds and wondrous new galactic spaceships. The lightsaber battles are as grippingly intense as ever. There is a battle with the Wookies that will have fans cheering (yes, indeed, Chewbacca does fleetingly return). And, as in the previous films, people indoors face enormous windows where dozens of ships are headed somewhere (the air traffic jams must be horrendous considering a war is going on). In terms of special-effects backgrounds, lavish cityscapes and incorporating seamless CGI with live action, George Lucas and his ILM team have outdone themselves yet again. Just looking at the opening sequence, bordering on the usual laser beam battles amongst cruisers and TIE fighters, the ships move with such three-dimensionality that you may end up on the edge of your seat. Considering that Lucas is re-releasing this saga in 3-D, it will be even more awesome than ever (UPDATE: Apparently not. Some theatergoers found the 3-D effects in "Phantom Menace" to be fuzzy).

All effects aside, "Revenge of the Sith" is occasionally uneven despite a lightning pace and several frenetic action scenes. I admire the innocent relationship between Anakin and Padme but it is still wooden compared to Han Solo and Princess Leia's romance. In fact, Christensen and Portman are at their best when tension grows between them - her gradual shock and his malevolent side works nicely in contrast. The Wookie battle is terrifically fun to watch, but it is so short that you'll wonder what the purpose was (I suppose Master Yoda was looking for new armies to recruit). The movie also has a slightly weak section involving the destruction of the Jedi Knights - we see two or three of them killed but what about all the others? Darth Vader is supposed to have hunted down and destroyed all the Jedi Knights. A scene involving an implied killing of "younglings" may be a little too intense for tots, but more violence (did I just say that?) may have paved the way to understanding Anakin's emergence into evil.

These criticisms are highly subjective. "Revenge of the Sith" may not be as grandiose in its emotional context as say "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" but this is Star Wars, not the land of Frodo and friends. There is nothing as revelatory as Vader's famous line to his offspring, Luke, in "The Empire Strikes Back," but there are still a few surprises in "Sith." The malicious nature of Palpatine and (spoilers ahead) his twisted Darth Sidious, also known as the Emperor, is almost Shakespearean in tone, especially as he persuades Anakin to turn to evil. Yoda is the biggest marvel of this prequel trilogy as he expounds on his philosophy using backward oracular phrases. His rousing confrontation with the Emperor is a spectacular display of action and seamless animation - Yoda is no longer a puppet held by Frank Oz, as you all know. Brief appearances by C3PO and R2-D2 (who supplies a lot of the film's humor) are welcome.

But major kudos must go to Hayden Christensen, no longer the wimpish, rebellious teenager of "Attack of the Clones" - he shows how cruel and malevolent a Sith lord can be. And the sad conclusion of his destiny is truly tragic and paints a new picture on the original trilogy.

"Revenge of the Sith" is superb entertainment guaranteed to please most "Star Wars" fans, if not all of them. George Lucas has given us his final hurrah to a thirty-year endeavor that began with the most influential phenomenon of the twentieth century. For many of us (myself included), "Sith" is as fitting a reminder of that nostalgia as "Star Wars" gets.

Yoda kicks ass, Anakin's anger slowly forms

STAR WARS: EPISODE II 

ATTACK OF THE CLONES (2002)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

(Original Review from 2002)

Just to show you the evils of the Internet, the naysayers began their proverbial attacks on George Lucas's anticipated second chapter in the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy long before he shot a roll of film. Questions abounded like "What kind of title is 'Attack of the Clones'? Are we watching killer tomatoes again? Why bring back Jar-Jar Binks, if ever so briefly? A 'Star Wars' love story? George Lucas has the temerity to write and direct it again after failing miserably with 'The Phantom Menace'?" Forget the naysayers. Forget the hype. If you love "Star Wars" at all, you could care less what anyone else thinks about it. I'll say this: "Attack of the Clones" is the best damn "Star Wars" picture since "The Empire Strikes Back," though not nearly as explosive or as entertaining. It is, however, more souped-up, dazzling and character-oriented than "The Phantom Menace" and far more involving in every way.

The future Darth Vader, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), is now older than his youthful counterpart in "Phantom Menace." He has been under the tutelage of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), a Jedi Knight who is teaching Anakin to be patient before learning the more mature ways of the Force. Anakin does have a way with his lightsaber. He finally meets with former Queen of Naboo, Amidala (Natalie Portman), now a Senator, who is still negotiating peace with other galaxy systems. No sooner is an attempt made on her life that we learn peace is not under advisement at the moment. A separatist movement has begun, notably under the leadership of an evil Jedi, Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), who is building an army of clones for an apparent war. Nevertheless, Anakin is asked to protect Amidala from danger, while Obi-Wan is in hot pursuit of an assassin, Jango Fett (Temeura Morrison), which leads to the planet where the clones are being assembled by the thousands.

"Attack of the Clones" eschews the cutesy theatrics of "Return of the Jedi" and "Phantom Menace" for a far more serious and sinister tone. It makes sense since Anakin is slowly developing feelings of hate, not to mention unduly love for Amidala. Love, fear and hate - a Jedi craves not these things. When Anakin finds that his mother, Shimi (an underused Perilla August, returning from the original), has been killed by the Tuscan Raiders (Sand People to the rest of you), this Jedi begins a rampage and the seething anger and roots of violence begin to take shape (even Amidala is shaken when she hears of his exploits). We are talking about a man who will eventually cause the death of many Rebels in the future, and it is a sometimes grim experience witnessing Anakin's slow transformation. As Lucas has mentioned, "Episode III" will not have a happy ending.

If writer-director and creator George Lucas is still deficient in any department, it is in the romance angle. Han Solo and Princess Leia always had great chemistry, but that was largely due to Lawrence Kasdan's witty writing in "The Empire Strikes Back." In this film, a romance slowly develops between Anakin and Amidala and, though it is bittersweet, it is not half as romantic or as juicy as any scenes between Solo or Leia. Anakin gives Amidala those beatific smiles and looks but it is too sour to really evoke fireworks (there must be more than a gleam in the eye and cascading waterfalls in the background to elicit any romantic interest. One must remember these are the parents of the future Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia). Yet Hayden Christensen is a charismatic performer, alluding to an edge that is bringing him closer to Darth Vader's character. And Natalie Portman is at least not too stately as in the last film, showing a little more liveliness and some athleticism. She seems to actually move about more, rather than sitting like a zombie in her throne.

Yes, there are some lulls in the pacing. Yes, Lucas doesn't always trust his visual eye completely and cuts away a little too quickly from his beautifully crafted images of landscapes and cityscapes. Yes, the dialogue is often clumsily written (as it always has been). Yes, the annoying Jar-Jar Binks makes a guest appearance, and almost ruins the momentum. However, never has a "Star Wars" movie had such a sonic sweep. This movie swishes and swooshes before our eyes in a way not seen since "Empire." There are so many marvelous sequences, particularly the 40-minute finale, that are guaranteed to give the audience the thrills they have been longing for all along. We are talking multitudes of dueling lightsabers (even the crafty Yoda handles one), spaceships with strange, sonic motor sounds, fantastically grotesque creatures in a gladiator-style tournament, cavernous castles, a rainy city where creatures with elongated necks (reminding one of "A.I." and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind") talk about the clones, bounty hunters with rocket packs, the bantering of old favorites like C-3PO and R2-D2 (both still played by Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker), droid factories with lots of furnaces and smoke, "Metropolis" cities with thousands of ships in the skies, Samuel's Jackson's Mace Windu actually sporting a purple lightsaber, asteroid fields, and so on. No one will walk away from "Attack of the Clones" without the look of astonishment from these incredible visuals. Yet Lucas is not entirely interested in visual candy. All of the technical mastery of special-effects and CGI effects in the world mean nothing unless it is in the service of a story. They certainly are. The most striking image is of Anakin, hot on his tail for revenge, on a speeder traveling at super speeds across the desert of Tatooine. Anger is leading closer to the Dark Side of the Force, and by the end of the film, you will certainly feel the darkness settling in. This "Star Wars" is not a festive walk in the park - it is as somber as one expects with occasional flashes of humor.

An ambiguous, open-ended finale (essential as a lead-in to "Episode III") and some of the most stunning visuals in eons, "Attack of the Clones" is damn good fun if overlong and cluttered with one too many speeches on the Republic. Yes, it is necessary exposition but I'd just as soon learn more about Anakin and his relationship with Padme Amidala and Obi Wan Kenobi. Nothing quite beats the chemistry of the Han Solo-Princess Leia-Luke Skywalker camaraderie of the initial trilogy, but this film has enough appeal and an ominous tone that will leave viewers breathless for more.

Darth vader built C3PO

STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Original review from May, 1999)

I can't even begin to tell you what a big Star Wars fan I used to be. The "Star Wars" movies were terrific entertainments, full of sound and fury and encompassing great characters who, by the end of "Return of the Jedi," became our own best friends - we knew them as if they were family. Han Solo, Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker and those two witty robots have become a permanent fixture in our pop culture psyche. "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" has to be the most anticipated blockbuster event in the last decade or so. It also has been, since its release in the summer of 1999, the most reviled sequel or prequel in history. My prognosis: It's thrilling but never truly involving.

"Episode I" marks the beginning of the "Star Wars" saga, and it is a world only Lucas could have conceived. During the rousing title sequence following the familiar 20th Century Fox logo, we learn that the Trade Federation wants Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman), ruler of the planet Naboo, to sign a peace treaty. Her refusal sparks a war between her planet, which includes the Galactic Republic, and an Empire-of-sorts regime ruled by Darth Sidious and his apprentice, a red-devil-faced, anti-Jedi named Darth Maul (Ray Park). It is up to two freelance ambassadors (!) named Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson), a Jedi master, and his apprentice, good old Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) with a ponytail, to rescue the Queen and take her to the relatively safe planet of Tatooine. It is there where the fate of the Jedi lies with a young, precocious boy named Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), the future Darth Vader, who has a way of repairing machines such as pod racers and creating droids like the unfinished C-3PO! He also has this dream of becoming a Jedi.

The movie unfolds with one amazing sequence after another. We see vast landscapes of different planets and underwater cities. We watch in extreme derision an explosive pod race, presided by good old Jabba the Hutt, where these flying race machines make accelerated turns through rock formations and narrow tunnels resembling Monument Valley - these pod racers are too fast for the eye to catch. We see dozens of digitally created creatures, including wildly ferocious sea animals, and there are the bland-looking battle droids that easily come apart. The most distracting of the creatures is a floppy-eared, amphibious Gungan animal named Jar-Jar Binks, who speaks with a Jamaican accent. We witness many battle sequences, and the most electrifying is a lightsaber duel between Darth Maul and the two Jedis that is pulse-pounding and superbly staged and edited.

George Lucas certainly went out of his way to create a world unlike anything we have ever seen before, even as far as the previous "Star Wars" films. This time, however, he has invested less interest in the human characters. Lucas may have never been a great storyteller but he always paid great attention to character details and nuances. The most profound and memorable character is the Jedi Master Qui-Gon, nicely underplayed by Liam Neeson, who resorts to having too much faith in the young Anakin - he wants to train him despite the Jedi Council's objections. MacGregor's Obi-Wan mostly nods and obeys his master, but he may be a more prominent character in "Episode II" since he reluctantly becomes Anakin's trainer in the Jedi arts. Portman's Queen Amidala is to be the future mother to Luke and Leia, yet here she seems cold and distant - very uncharacteristic of her future daughter's stubbornness or sex appeal. And there are fleeting cameos by Samuel L. Jackson as Jedi council member, Mace Windu; Ian McDiamid as Senator Palpatine, the future evil Emperor; Terence Stamp as a Supreme Chancellor; and the exquisitely restrained Pernilla August (from "The Best Intentions") as Anakin's mother, a slave to some floating bug named Watto. These characters are so noble and fascinating that you wish Lucas gave them more screen time, and less to all the sluggish, superficial exposition given to the Trade Federation and their plans. And I would have loved to seen more of the nefarious Darth Maul - one of the best, most enigmatic villains since Boba Fett.

"The Phantom Menace" is still one helluva show and definitely a treat for all Star Wars fans, including myself. I loved the experience of watching it, and it was great to see brief appearances by C-3PO and R2-D2 again, not to mention the great Yoda and the hysterical cameo by Jabba the Hutt. But the movie does not have the freshness, sense of wonder or magic that the other films had - some of it is too plodding and superfluous. You'll come away wanting more (and wish there was less of Jar-Jar Binks). Perhaps that is what Lucas had in mind all along.

A Kubrick Love Story on a shoestring budget

STRANGERS KISS (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

What must it have been like to be on the set of Stanley Kubrick's "Killer's Kiss"? Matthew Chapman's sobering if ineffectual film, "Strangers Kiss," dares to ask the question of where fiction and reality lie in the face of low-budget moviemaking.

Set in Hollywood, 1955, Peter Coyote plays Stanley, the director of a low-budget film set in New York City about a low-rent boxer who gets mixed up with a blonde femme fatale and gangsters. It is so low-budget that nobody in the crew is likely to get paid. Stanley and his producer, Farris (Dan Shor), are searching for their leading man, a boxer type. Many actors audition but one stands out, a funny, cocky actor named Stevie (Blaine Novak). He looks funny and strange and has a wild head of curly hair, but he fits the bill. Their leading actress, Carol Redding (Victoria Tennant), has already been cast. Filming is underway until Carol and Stevie start to slowly develop feelings for each other. This could destroy the production considering that the financier is Frank Silva (Richard Romanus), a rough gangster type who is too worried over his investment, and too preoccupied with Carol.

Viewed today amidst the countless movie-within-movie treatments we have been privy to, "Strangers Kiss" is most unusual and offbeat. Some of it is almost whimsical and some of it seems forced, but it is a fascinating foray into the artistic process of making something out of nothing. The noir B picture itself is nothing extraordinary but it does have some natural beauty, and it is fun seeing Stanley directing his actors to play scenes naturally without any obvious tics. The best scene is when Stevie has to kiss Carol, and keeps screwing it up so he can keep kissing her. It is a magical moment to witness.

The problem is that the real-life story of these characters is barely interesting. Romanus, taking a cue from his work in "Mean Streets," seems like a typical gangster who is jealous of his girlfriend's cinematic ambitions and her love for the lead actor. Romanus doesn't overplay it but there is nothing here that is special or daring about the role. Victoria Tennant is also bland as Carol, again she has more energy when she is on the film set than in her lazily written scenes with Romanus. The Stevie character is also bland in a strange way, exuding far more liveliness when we do not see him romantically wooing for Carol's attention. Maybe that was Chapman's intention - real life is not half as fun as the movies- but the "reality" scenes feel sterile at best.

Though Peter Coyote does not look anything like Stanley Kubrick, the master's obsessive attention to detail is certainly evoked. Coyote has never bored me as an actor and here, he delivers authority and presence - something most of the film actually lacks. As a curio for Kubrick film fans (and the references to Kube's own "Killer's Kiss"), "Strangers Kiss" is often illuminating and captivating but it does fall short of its expectations.

Saving Private Joey in No Man's Land

WAR HORSE (2011)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"War Horse" as a play is probably more magnificent and emotionally draining than as a film or a novel. The play itself used advanced, life-size puppets for the horses which would make for a stirring play. But for a movie that runs nearly two and a half hours, using real horses in the face of the reality and horror of war, it makes for a curiously remote and rather unrewarding experience thanks to cardboard and underwritten characters.

The film, set before and during World War I, begins in the English county of Devon where Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) is the farmboy who lives with his drunk father, Ted (Peter Mullan), and his tough mother, Rose (Emily Wat­son). Ted is to buy a horse at an auction and spends nearly thirty guineas on a colt! Rose is upset but it is Albert who sees potential in the striking mane of this new horse named Joey. Albert trains the animal to plough the land and save the farm from being bought by Lyons (David Thewlis), a greedy landowner. Before one can say that we are treading in "Babe" waters (and thank goodness the horse can't talk), World War I has begun and Ted sells the horse to the English Army, to be taken care of by a cavalry officer (Tom Hiddleston).

The story shifts from cavalry officers who use the horses to fight the Germans, to a little vignette involving two young German brothers who are officers who hide out in a farmhouse, to a young girl and her grandfather tending the horses, shifting back to the German Army who need the horses to tow their cannons, to the horse running in No Man's Land and getting injured by barbed wire, and so on. Hard to say which vignette works best but the one involving the German brothers is the shortest and most powerful. It ends with a scene that is remarkably strong and abrupt - a scene that would be more at home in "All Quiet on the Western Front" than in this film.

Director Steven Spielberg knows how to craft scenes of picturesque countrysides, soldiers fighting in the trenches and in cavalry formation as they charge to the German guns, and he knows how to direct horses! "War Horse," however, never quite establishes any real connection with its thin characters. Jeremy Irvine is as bland a farmboy as I have seen in a long time. Emily Watson occasionally elicits a smile when showing how proud she is of her son's strength. Peter Mullan merely looks angry or indifferent. The picture comes alive with Tom Hiddleston's sympathetic cavalry officer who works on drawings of the horse to send back to Albert. Aside from Hiddleston, I didn't feel any emotional attachment with any of the human characters, though certainly anyone would feel bad for the horses Joey and Tophorn, the latter a black stallion who befriends Joey.

Spielberg sentimentalizes Joey's plight - we feel his pain, his need to be close to Albert, and his exhaustion when dragged through miles and miles of mud while strapped to a cannon. But by the end of the film, with its dramatically red sunset hues and silhouettes that scream "Gone With the Wind," I didn't feel emotionally drained by the experience. I just felt emotionally empty.

Footnote: Kids, parents, veterinarians and PETA members should steer clear of this film - many horses die in battle, Tophorn dies from exhaustion, and Joey endures way too much pain.

Johnny Blaze is back! HELL, YES!

GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE (2012)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

The critics despised "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance." I didn't hate it or love it - it is what it is. What it is is merely 90 minutes of hellfire and brimstone and plenty of one-liners but no real panache. I'll say that I admired the first "Ghost Rider" more than this one but both do have their detractors, so whatevs.

"Spirit of Vengeance" has Johnny Blaze aka Ghost Rider (Nicolas Cage) getting summoned by a wine-loving French mercenary and former (?) monk (Idris Elba) to help locate a gypsy child, Danny Ketch (Fergus Riordan) and his mother, Nadya (Italian beauty Violante Placido). Both are being hunted by Satan himself (the magnetic Ciaran Hinds) and his minions headed by the cold-blooded Ray (Johnny Whitworth). Satan needs a new body vessel and who better than this little kid whom he fathered with the help of Nadya. This was a deal with the Devil to help save Nadya's life - a deal that the Ghost Rider understands all too well. It's Johnny Blaze meets "Rosemary's Baby" mixed with some lethal fiery chains and a charred black leather jacket.

Nicolas Cage is his fervent, over-the-top, theatrical self - he is always entertaining as long he yells and does his erratic double-takes. Gone are the days of Cage's restraint in films like "Leaving Las Vegas" and, to some degree, "Bringing Out the Dead" or "Peggy Sue Got Married," etc. Cage is the new anarchic cult figure of the B-movies but he seems to have cast adrift the serious work he used to do. Still, Cage rocks as a heavy-metal actor delivering his lines with as much vigor as possible. I cheered for him (gasp!) and for Idris Elba who could make a whole film where he presses vinyl albums and I would be entranced. Ditto the slightly underused Violante Placido, a more stunning woman than Eva Mendes in the original (though there is no romantic relationship between her and flaming skull, there should be for "Ghost Rider 3").  I also thoroughly enjoyed the decaying presence of Ciaran Hinds's Roarke, the Devil Incarnate, and Johnny Whitworth who is reincarnated as Blackout, an albino demon who can create a dark field which dampens all visible light in a given area. He can also burn everything to toast with his hands, though a Twinkie proves indestructible. I laughed at that scene.

"Ghost Rider 2" is enjoyably fast and furious (thanks to the "Crank" filmmakers Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor) with plenty of self-parodic gags (such as the image of Jerry Springer as the human manifestation of Satan). I also love the animated breaks in the action with Cage's voice-over. Most of all, this is also an excuse to see the incredible sight of the charred, flaming skull of Ghost Rider in action. As I mentioned, the movie falls short of the devilish charms of the first "Ghost Rider" and, considering the character is an anti-hero of the Marvel Universe and something of a monster, it will not appeal to those who love "The Avengers" or Spider-Man, comics and otherwise. Cage gets to show some real emotion at the end, but the film lacks the support of someone like Sam Elliott (and the mythology hardly follows the canon of the comics or the original film). For cult movie buffs and fans of "Highlander," you can't go wrong though with the appearance of Christopher Lambert. Cage defines anarchy, and anarchy defines this movie. Hell, yeah!