The Boys' Testosterone is Back!

THE EXPENDABLES (2010)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

It is too late for me to give career advice to Sylvester Stallone, and why would I? He made a gentle, noble, awe-inspiring move when he brought back Rocky Balboa in 2006, and it did some solid box-office business. He also brought back Rambo in 2008, and that move was ill-advised. "The Expendables" is Stallone in full action-movie splendor with enough explosions and occasionally one-liners crossed with killer machismo to keep most action fans happy. It is not great nor is it a good movie, but it is just a slap-happy, delirious picture with plenty of violence and no real brains.

Giving the plot away of movie like this is counterproductive since there are no big twists or revelations. A group of buddy-buddy mercenaries led by Stallone get a 5 million dollar offer to overthrow a Latin American dictator (from the island of Vilena) who is actually controlled by an ex-CIA agent played by Eric Roberts. That is it, the plot hanging by a rusty fingernail in a mortar shell.

Stallone, who wrote and directed, assembles this movie like a throwback to the old Golan-Globus action pics of the 1980's. Veteran Dolph Lundgren is surprisingly solid as one drug-addled mercenary who has more than a few screws loose. There are also brief cameos by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger who are so vividly exciting to watch that you wish the movie had more of them (they do appear in the sequel). Mickey Rourke is on hand as Tool, the tattoo artist, who has one very gripping scene that is at odds with the level of EXTREME machismo of these musclebound heroes. Other than these old reliable pros, we get newbies like Terry Crews (playing a character named Hale Caesar), Jet Li, Jason Statham and more. Statham is the real breakout star of the new bunch - he's got style, panache and cunning wit.

Stallone sometimes looks bored out of his mind or just simply indifferent to the chaos around him. Other times, his energy level rises to 11 when he fires a weapon. I will give him credit for imbuing this film with political urgency in regards to waterboarding and Somali pirates - he has always tried to be relevant to the times. Overall, "The Expendables" is big, loud and extremely violent with many long bareknuckle fight scenes and lots of machine gun fire. Explosions are always delivered on cue, the fight scenes deliver every ounce of Digitally Magnified Thud Sounds when someone falls on their back or are thrown against a wall, and the arsenal of one-liners never wanes. These guys are strong cartoonish personalities that give the audience what they want. Oddly, these mercenaries are also lovesick puppies who are lonely and miserable - at least a couple of them seem to love women and want them to stand by. Deep down, though, they are more in love with sticking lustrous knives into the necks of their bloodsoaked enemies than making love. Sounds about right.

Not a 'Shining' example of a haunted house

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I wish I could simplify and say this horror remake plainly bites the big one, or that it merely sucks. But brevity would be giving this movie some sort of undeserved status amongst fans of truly awful cinema. This 2005 remake of 1979's "The Amityville Horror" deserves better than a disposable, putrid version of "The Shining."

Laughably based on a true story by Jay Anson that has since been debunked time and again (and considering the real Lutzes objected to this remake), bearded George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) and Kathy Lutz (Melissa George) move into a new, spacious house in good old Amityville for a bargain price. And, wouldn't you know, the realtor tells the Lutzes after making the sale that a series of murders, involving the DeFeo family, occurred in that house with the dreaded eye attic windows! Oh, my! Of course the parents don't tell their kids yet the youngest of the bunch sees the spirit of the murdered girl! And suddenly George gets headaches, bursts a blood vessel in his right eye, swings an axe with great abandon in front of his stepkids, and finds that the warmest place in the house is the basement. Incredibly, George Lutz appears nuttier than Jack Torrance.

This movie is so underwritten that we have to accept on faith that George owns a construction company because he drives a truck with the company's logo on it! Mostly, he mopes around the house and has an affinity for his motorboat. The wife does the shopping and takes care of the kids so you may ask, who the hell works in this household? The real story is that the Lutzes moved out of Amityville after 2 weeks, primarily because George was broke and couldn't afford the mortgage. Everything else about the "true story" is entirely suspect.

The original "Amityville Horror" was nothing special but it did contain a few chilling scenes. Remember the black ooze from the toilet? How about the Red Room? In this movie, there is only one moment that truly chills the bone. It involves the babysitter who frightens the kids with stories of the DeFeo family murders. The babysitter gets trapped in the closet and bangs the door until her knuckles bleed. We saw this in the original, too, but it is the only scare in this movie. Mostly we have the customary split-second cuts of blood-drenched demons (in this case, Native Americans), blood dripping from walls and not much more to distinguish it from the normal horror fare.

The house doesn't look ominous. The acting and frantic cuts are by the numbers. There is no sense of atmosphere or location or even a population in town (if this is Amityville, it shouldn't look like Nowheresville). And poor Philip Baker Hall as the priest is clearly in it for the paycheck. Everyone else should have taken the warning from the house's ghosts: Get out!

GET OUT!

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (1979)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

At the tender age of eight, my mother took me to see "The Amityville Horror" in a movie theater. I remember being exceptionally scared by it, and recall quite vividly some of the movie's scary and eerie moments like the black liquid oozing from a toilet; the pig with the red eyes; the Red Room scene, and so on. I had not seen the film since 1979 until recently on DVD. Well, looking at the film now more objectively than when I was eight, I have concluded that "The Amityville Horror" is only occasionally effective but it also mostly silly, dull, and frightfully cold and emotionless.

The story, based on a now debunked "true story" novel by Jay Anson, centers on the Lutzes, a couple who move in to the dreaded Long Island house with their three kids. The house is sold cheaply, mainly because a killing spree took place a few years earlier involving the DeFeo family - they were killed by their teenage son with a shotgun. I would never move into a house where murders had taken place - nowadays, such houses are usually boarded up though not always. Anyway, the Lutzes love the house and buy it. George Lutz (James Brolin) begins to feel the curious need of chopping wood for the fireplace through most of the film. The wife feels neglected, especially since he won't help with carrying the groceries. The daughter starts talking to her new friend, Jody, who is invisible, and has a habit of locking her babysitter in the closet. A frantic psychotherapist/priest/exorcist (Rod Steiger) comes to bless the house one day until he is chased out by flies and a voice saying, "Get Out!" A nun comes to the house and feels so sick upon entering that she vomits on the Lutzes's driveway. Either the house smells and needs to be fumigated or it is haunted.

"The Amityville Horror" is chock full of "shock" moments, and some of them are effective (the babysitter pounding on the closet door with her bloodied hands is disturbing). The film, however, has no momentum. It sort of labors along at a snail pace pausing occasionally for some weird occurrences and rappings in the house (my favorite being the case of the missing 1500 dollars). The main flaw is that the Lutzes are presented as less a family than some annoying neighbors I could hardly care about - no attempt to develop sympathy for them has been made. Mr. Brolin comes off as demented a madman within the first few minutes as Jack Nicholson did in "The Shining." Margot Kidder, a reliable actress of dignity, comes off best but not enough to save the film. Steiger overacts shamefully, supposedly trying to match the towering performance of Max Von Sydow in "The Exorcist." As the realtor should have said at the beginning of the film: No sale.

P.S. The Oscar-nominated musical score by Lalo Schifrin was originally composed for "The Exorcist" but it was rejected by director William Friedkin.

'We are going to make groovy movies'

THE AMERICAN DREAMER (1971)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

When Dennis Hopper's labor of love "The Last Movie" was released in 1971, it became a box-office and critical disaster. It followed on the footsteps of Hopper's directorial debut, "Easy Rider," which was a huge success back in 1969 that heralded a new voice in American cinema. "The American Dreamer" attempts to chart Hopper's days in Taos, New Mexico while editing "The Last Movie" amidst partying and drinking and having numerous female groupies at his disposal. That's about it, folks.

Fortunately or not, there is not much to take away from "The American Dreamer." One scene has Dennis Hopper pontificating about life, another scene has him in a bathtub with three naked women, another scene he talks about not reading books since experiencing life is all you need, another scene has him walking naked in Los Alamos as proof that few people are really that free, and so on. And on. And on. Sometimes we see Dennis Hopper editing his non-traditional opus, "The Last Movie," and sometimes he shows his own photographs that he lays on the floor. The behind-the-scenes of editing his film as he was holed up in Taos for one year is hardly absorbing material  because there is precious little of it. Hopper was clearly not all that different from his character in "Easy Rider" - the Great Pontificator who smokes weed, drinks and loves women. That is not to say Dennis Hopper is an uninteresting man but this documentary's fly-on-the-wall approach doesn't merit close introspection on the man himself.

There is a Life magazine article on the making of "The Last Movie" - the Peruvian filming location featured wild cocaine and LSD parties, troubles with the Communist leader and a priest while shooting in Chinchero, and a host of political problems and weather challenges. I would like to see a film about that than this labored effort. Dennis Hopper's monotone delivery for one hour and twenty minutes is too much of a challenge for me - it is like watching an inarticulate drunk trying to pass himself as the voice of a new generation. Sometimes Dennis Hopper can be an intoxicating presence but this time, he is not very groovy. 

SEX=CENSORSHIP

THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I always felt the MPAA was a sham. To this day, it may strike some as odd that the original "Jaws" is rated PG and "2001: A Space Odyssey" is rated G. "Jaws" is actually rather gory with shots of a severed head, Robert Shaw getting eaten alive by the shark, a kid getting eaten by the shark with blood surfacing like a geyser, etc. An R rating would've been more appropriate. "2001" could have yielded a PG (since it was released before the PG-13 rating came into prominence) if for no other reason than the fact that HAL kills four astronauts on board the Jupiter. And there are various other examples that raise questions ever since the advent of this hypocritical and useless system. Director Kirby Dick doesn't answer many questions that have always come to my mind about the ratings board, but he does raise other eye-opening facts about the MPAA that may send shockwaves to your gut.

For instance, you can be fined and jailed if you use a facsimile of Mickey Mouse on a birthday cake! Okay, that is an unusual one. There are more strict guidelines with regards to cinema. If you show a female having an orgasm in an extreme close-up, you'll get an NC-17. Clips are shown from "The Cooler" and Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" as evidence of NC-17 rated films. Interestingly, "The Cooler" features actress Maria Bello having the orgasm, who also had a rough sex scene and a tender one in "A History of Violence" where she did climax and that film got an R rating without sexual trims. Hmmm. The mind boggles.

Sexuality amongst couples (straight and gay, though gay sex is more often given the dreaded rating) as depicted in full frontal nudity measured against the number of thrusts or humps is what drives these members to rate the films accordingly. Apparently, the new trend is frank sexual talk as shown in clips from Kevin Smith's "Jersey Girl" and John Waters' highly outrageous and hysterical "A Dirty Shame," and if it is too frank or candid, it gets an R. If the talk is too outrageous (as in Waters' film) and smothered with actual penetrations that are tastefully implied, it gets the NC-17. But one can agree that "Pink Flamingos" is more NC-17 territory than "A Dirty Shame" yet both films have the same rating.

Director Kirby Dick (who also appears on camera) hires some private investigators to find out the identity of the anonymous MPAA board members. We find out that most MPAA members are indeed parents, and at least two of them are mature men who have kids that are well into their twenties. Why is this relevant? Because since the majority of this small group of MPAA members in Southern California are parents, how can they dictate their rating choices from the perspective of a parent who has children? Most mind-boggling question: why is the MPAA suited to only a handful of people in Southern California, thus representing what they think is best for all of America?

What is less problematic in terms of avoiding the NC-17 is violence, thus getting poor Hilary Swank's head blown off in "Boys Don't Cry" is far less unsavory than providing sexual pleasure to Chloe Sevigny ("Brown Bunny," anyone?) So sex, sex, sex in this Janet Jackson/post-NippleGate era is far more of a hindrance than bloodbaths in torture porn or Iraq War documentaries. Yes, another stunning admission is that Michael Tucker, the director of an Iraq War documentary called "Gunner Palace," faced censorship by the board over something rather benign in this day and age - foul-mouthed language. Yet the soldiers in the film are real and are really saying such obscenities - so why not a PG rating so the young men and women who are thinking of enlisting can see the film? Truth is, Tucker asked for an appeal and got a PG-13 rating. Some appeals work, and some don't.

But there is almost no consistency in the ratings system. A brief clip is shown from "Coming Home" from 1978, which features Jane Fonda having an orgasm in close-up that lasts much longer than Maria Bello's in "The Cooler." Yet "The Cooler" had to trim its orgasmic scene to get the R rating (and avoid showing pubic hair). Maria Bello mentions "Scary Movie" having a scene where Carmen Electra's breast is stabbed with some blood pouring out of it (the film got an R rating). So it seems that violence crossed with sexuality gets a free pass from the prohibitive NC-17 rating.

Director Kirby Dick also makes mention of the former head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, and how his political ties may have shaped the MPAA into what it is today. That is a possibility after 40 years of service, considering that politics governs our corporations which make up most of the U.S. media outlets. Therefore, censorship is the driving principle, using children as the backbone of our country. Please. During the advent of the NC-17 rating in 1990, the late Valenti once told Roger Ebert that he can make no distinction between artistic bestiality and non-artistic, thus the proposed "A" (for adults) rating by Ebert could never work.

If there had been a little less focus on the detectives, Kirby Dick's film might have been more complete. There are some shots shown of Todd Solondz's film, "Storytelling," but they are without context. If anyone has seen the film, the scene in question shows a man anally penetrating Selma Blair standing against a wall. The shots of the man, a professor, from behind were cut. So Solondz showed the scene with a red box superimposed over it. What made the MPAA nervous? Possibly because it was a black man having sex with Blair? After all, maybe a black man is only allowed so many thrusts. Some of these controversies could've had more screen time. Also, I would've loved to hear how the ratings have changed over forty years since the days of X-rated films like "A Clockwork Orange" and "Midnight Cowboy."

Let's face it, if we are thinking about the children and only the children when it comes to any movie, then I'd hope that they are more likely to see pubic hair, breasts and penises before seeing any horrifying violence in their own lives. At least I hope so. But I suppose I should be more conservative and think that kids should be protected from sexuality. Abstain from sex, not violence. Scary thought.

A swinging dick

BRUNO (2009)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Bruno" is the kind of movie that leaves you in stitches and in an uneasy discomfort. It is the also the kind of movie that makes you say, "He really didn't do that, did he?" I don't know how much longer Sacha Baron Cohen can keep up the charade of fooling people into saying things they might not otherwise say or do when he and a camera are present, but I can guess that "Bruno," a mockumentary full of tomfoolery and general bad behavior, will not be forgotten and may gain some sort of cult status.

Bruno is the most flamboyant fashion reporter you'll ever see. He's an Austrian reporter who is fired for reducing Fashion Week to chaos when he arrives with a velcro-suit (the scene is already something of a classic). After the firing, he goes to L.A. in the hopes of becoming a celebrity reporter. His idea for a new show is to interview stars like Harrison Ford interspersed with clips of his swinging penis (the interview with an angry Ford is short and hilarious). He also interviews Paula Abdul who has to sit on a Mexican worker and eat sushi off of a naked man! The show is clearly too outrageous and receives negative feedback. Next step for Bruno is to adopt an African baby ("black gold!") since all the celebrities do this to allegedly garner attention. He appears on "The Richard Bey Show" and tells an African-American audience that he will name his baby "O.J."

"Bruno" is not for the faint-hearted or the squeamish or those who don't like to be challenged by their own purported homophobia. If you loved "Borat," "Bruno" might be a tougher sell for those who are not fond of homophobic jokes or very brief close-ups of penises, or the gyrating and humping that briefly occurs between two gay men using various tools in various compromising positions. But if you are easily taken aback, you'll miss just how much hilarity ensues. "Bruno" is not standard comedy fare or even standard mockumentary fare. What creator and lead actor Sacha Baron Cohen has done is to act as outrageously as possible with the most garish of homosexual stereotypes and set up those he interviews who let their guard down and utter homophobic remarks. Best and one of the funniest examples is when Ron Paul (a one-time 2008 Republican presidential candidate) finds himself in a room with candles and Bruno stripped down to his undies! Paul makes the "queer" remark, though he doesn't know he has been punked. 

What you will find in "Bruno" is a mixture of truly outrageous and bawdy behavior. There is a swingers party sequence that is almost as funny as anything in "Borat", including a vixen hitting Bruno with a belt; Bruno trying to make the distinction between Hamas and hummus; a pray-the-gay away conversion that is probably more honest than what we saw in Bill Maher's "Religulous," and a hotel crew that doesn't want to find a key to unlock the chained Bruno and his gay lover in bed. But the capper is Bruno as the converted "Straight Dave" who is locked in a cage with his former lover in front of an audience of 1500 Southerners! That is like putting Mel Gibson (Whom Bruno calls Der Fuhrer) on a cross in a Jewish synagogue - pure trouble ahead.

I appreciate Cohen and his films, but I think audiences didn't quite catch on with the underlying subtext. Borat was a Russian stereotype with a big moustache ("Hey, I like you") who demonstrated naivete about Americans' way of life and made racist comments, thus allowing those around him to lower their guard and let out their inner racist hearts. With Bruno, Cohen is not having a gay stereotype make homophobic remarks - rather, Bruno merely taunts others and they just happen to let go of their inner homophobia. The context has changed, and the results are the same. "Bruno" is a wild, manic ride of a movie, too insanely high-pitched and too idiosyncratic for mainstream audiences. Still, for good laughs that hit below the belt and strike true notes, you can't do better than "Bruno." It is fabulous, but not for everyone.

One million a day can keep 300 million at bay

BREWSTER'S MILLIONS (1985)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It is a shame that Richard Pryor never got the role that truly defined him (excepting "Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life is Calling"). Pryor was such a considerable talent who had his own defined persona that was a bit of an effrontery to the mass audience. Putting it plainly, like Whoopi Goldberg and occasionally Eddie Murphy, Pryor never quite fit in the affable, laid-back roles in safely conventional comedies. Though it has some wisecracks and one clever visual pun, "Brewster's Millions" is a serviceable comedy that could've had anyone in the title role. Since the filmmakers play it safe rather than exploiting their idea for what it is worth, they put in an actor who has far more potential than displayed here.

Pryor is Montgomery Brewster, a low-grade baseball player for the Hackensack Bulls. The team is so low-grade that railroad tracks cut across their field and, well, they have to stop a game if a train crosses. Brewster is seemingly a talented pitcher but his ambitions are rather low. His best friend is Spike (John Candy), an umpire who has no major ambitions either. That is until Brewster discovers he has a 300 million inheritance left by his rich grandfather (Hume Cronyn). The stipulations are that 30 million are to be spent in one month, and spent wisely with no assets and hire people only for their market value. If Brewster succeeds, he'll get the 300 million. Of course, spending 1 million a day is no easy task, no matter how many security guards, accountants or prostitutes you hire.

The problem is that such a premise can only work if it is built for numerous comic possibilities. Some are funny, including buying a rare stamp and using it for postage! I also enjoyed how exasperated Brewster gets in just giving money away on the first day. And I love how Stephen Collins, appearing as the wimpy villain who wants Brewster to fail, says how much Brewster is paying him: "Brewster is paying me a quarter of a million dollars!"

Unfortunately, the film dovetails and begins to take itself rather seriously. Thanks to his lovely accountant (Lonette McKee), Brewster tries to be responsible and mature and uses the money wisely. He even starts his own political campaign with the unfunny slogan, "None of the Above." And not a single smile was elicited from my face when we see an actual exhibition game held by Brewster between his team and the NY Yankees.

I don't hate "Brewster's Millions" and I like its message but I sense this is not the movie for Richard Pryor. Pryor holds back too much, as does John Candy. Here you have two actors who could've mined comic gold out of such old-fashioned material and they basically operate as automatons delivering their lines with the attitude of robots who have zero exuberance. And since there isn't much in the way of wit or even a belly laugh (though there are a few chuckles strewn throughout), I sat there stunned and emotionless. A comedy like this should be rapid-fire and full of energy (much like the 1945 version, which is one of seven different versions of this story), especially when it comes to the movie's conceit that anyone and anything can be bought. Brewster finds some initial joy in it and then becomes exceedingly remote and indifferent. This could've been a doozy of a role for Tom Hanks or even John Candy, but not for Richard Pryor.