J Lost in her own Ghost World

MY FIRST MISTER (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Leelee Sobieski has an earthy, ethereal presence that makes you fall in love with her. She has narrowly shaped-eyes that can see what you are really thinking, and you feel wrong to tell her anything but the truth. Sobieski is perfectly cast in "My First Mister," and yet she is miscast. How can this be? I am not sure but the last thing I'd ever expect her to play is a Goth chick who scribbles endless versions of her own eulogy. She is not Goth the way that Fairuza Balk would be and has been. There is something deeply disturbing and irksome about Sobieski in this film and yet something soulful and serene about her. Putting it midly, she is the star of the show.

Sobieski plays Jennifer, or "J" as she prefers, a cynical, misunderstood and misunderstanding teenage girl who listens to punk rock music, writes poetic phrases about death (and pricks her finger to make bloody marks on the pages), dresses in black, has dozens of piercings (though not on any private parts), and wears her hair in shades of black and purple. She despises her mother (Carol Kane) for being so blandly happy, dismisses her stepfather (Michael McKean), hates her real father, a stoner (John Goodman), and basically feels alienated from her high school peers and teachers (she even imagines a teacher with fangs snarling at her). Who can this girl relate to?

One fine day, after getting fired from her job, she meets a meek, anal retentive man named Randall (Albert Brooks) who owns a clothing store at the local mall. She tries to get a job at the store and he dismisses her. Slowly, though, after making crude remarks about his beer belly, they develop an unusual friendship based on mutual needs. Both of them are loners and they begin to know each other intimately. Randall sees a forlorn teenager who needs someone to listen to her. Jennifer sees Randall as a man who cannot relate to anyone based on fear of people, and who would rather settle for an evening reading a magazine than having a conversation. They open their eyes to each other's faults and misgivings about people in their lives, including lovers, ex-wives, and crazy parents.

"My First Mister" is nothing new but it has a stunningly good premise. A punk rock teenager who could get her "eyeballs pierced" sharing small talk with a straight-as-an-arrow store manager is ripe for good laughs, and I do mean as comedic material. Of course, opposites do attract but, in the real world, it is unlikely such a union could take place (or maybe I do not get out much at the local malls). I had a hard time believing that this could develop into a relationship beyond sharing small talk, and I think I was right. First-time director Christine Lahti (who won an Academy Award for a short film she directed) directs everything in the first hour with ease and just enough pizazz to make us wonder where this strange relationship will go. Unfortunately, as with most similar tales, it takes a route headed into that deadly maudlin road where forgiveness is possible and people can change 180 degrees from their initial behavior. Let's consider Jennifer for a moment - she talks about killing herself and she wounds herself with sharp objects. Randall notices all this so the logical solution would be that Jennifer needs help, or is merely crying for help. Or she is just a rebel without a cause? A goth chick who makes a mockery out of any and everyone suddenly warms up to Randall because he is so lonely? Something doesn't quite click here. Either A.) Make Jennifer just a hopeless rebel goth chick who has a talent for poetry and needs to belong to something or B.) Make her a mental case who needs help fast. Both ideas coincide uneasily and the problem with this kind of screenwriting is that it assumes the audience has amnesia. The Jennifer at the start of the film and at the end of the film seem to be two different people.

And surprisingly enough, "My First Mister" warrants a viewing because of Leelee Sobieski. No matter how many left turns the script takes, Leelee stole my heart and made me wish her character would better her life (the scene where she reconciles with her mother, though, left a lot to be desired). I would have eliminated the character of Randall's son completely, and focused on other aspects of Randall (like his relationship with the nurse played by Mary Kay Place). Anything but the son which seems to come from a different movie. Lovely Leelee and Albert Brooks make it worthwile in the long run. Still, for a movie that begins like the phenomenal "Ghost World" only to end up as a Lifetime special is pushing credibility a little too far.

Phone home to 1982 version

E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(original review from 2002 screening)

I am not a huge fan of sentimental fantasy movies, but there is still a special place in my heart for "E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial," Steven Spielberg's superb fantasy movie that is now getting a digitally remastered look and some added footage. I do not agree with the changes but I will say that seeing it again in a theater (having seen it twice in theaters in 1982) confirms this as one of Spielberg's finest achievements. A soaring, spirited, marvelous film that will be remembered for ages, just like its antecedent, "The Wizard of Oz."

Living in small-town suburbia, Elliott (Henry Thomas) is the eight year old kid who discovers an alien outside his house. Slowly but surely he develops a relationship with the friendly alien who loves Reese's Pieces (the sales of that candy skyrocketed at the time of the film's release). When Elliott's older brother, Mike (Robert MacNaughton), and his young sister, Gertie (Drew Barrymore), discover the alien in Elliott's room, a sense of awe takes over, unsure of how to react to a strange looking creature with big eyes, an enormous head and an elongated neck. Naturally, Mom (Dee Wallace) is not told of the creature staying in their house.

E.T.'s mission is to get back home after being left stranded on Earth. He tries to communicate with his kind using phone wires, a saw, a turntable and an electronic spelling machine. He also learns rather quickly to talk, and is used to substitute for Gertie during Halloween! Before you know it, the deja vu sets in when government agents are looking for the alien creature to do experiments. Can Elliott convince the agents that the alien is not out to do harm, that he is as friendly as your neighborhood dog?

Spielberg described the film as a "a fairy tale for the 80's," and it is as magical and entertaining as any of Spielberg's other flights of fancy. What is most amazing is how incredibly convincing the creature is. Never for a moment is there an indication that the creature is an animatronic marvel of special effects. It probably helps that Spielberg wisely avoids showing too much of the creature. There are often close-ups of its face, its enormous eyelids, and its gnome-like feet but not too much more to notice how fake all of it is (the same holds true of Spielberg's "Jaws" where the shark was barely seen).

Since the film deals with kids, we see the world and E.T. through the kids' eyes. Every shot is usually from a low angle, and adults are always seen from such an angle. This includes the terrific sequence in the classroom where Elliott is able to feel E.T.'s emotional feelings and senses telepathically. In this sequence, the science teacher's face is not actually shown, only his hands and arms. With the exception of Elliott's mother, adults are usually seen as a threat, particularly to Elliott and E.T.

There is not much more to say about "E.T." that has not been said before. The special-edition of the film, however, leaves something to be desired. Although the film looks and sounds as great as it once was, Spielberg ought to learn from George Lucas how not to meddle with the tried and true. The CGI effects for E.T. destroy whatever was real about the creature in the first place. I remember best how the film showed E.T. gliding away from its pursuers in the opening sequence. Now he jumps up and down, and then appears tired as the spaceship takes off. It somehow looks more fake than when they used a puppet. Especially appalling is the deleted bathroom sequence where Elliott takes a bath with E.T. The creature in this scene looks far too animated as compared to later shots where it is drunk in the kitchen, bumping into objects and so on. If Spielman wanted to use CGI, he should have reanimated the creature completely or not bothered at all.

Most upsetting is the final sequence where the government agents chase E.T. and the kids on bikes with guns. Now the agents carry walkie-talkies, not guns, thanks to CGI technology. Spielberg has said this is the way the sequence was always intended. Is he serious? As with most remastered editions of classics, this results in the deletion of one essential shot. As you may recall, the kids on bikes are cornered by hundreds of agents, all holding guns. One agent holds a rifle aimed squarely at E.T. The suspense carries over, as we fear for the kids' lives. Deleting this shot ruins whatever suspense was initially there. Just because you can revamp a film with CGI effects doesn't mean you should.

Okay, and lastly, how about the line delivered by Elliott's mother to Mike? She tells him not to dress like a terrorist for Halloween. After September 11th, 2001, this line might carry more of a negative connotation than initially but this is a film from 1982. The word "terrorist" is now replaced with "hippie." Why would the mother object to him dressing like a hippie? And the terrorist angle carries weight during the suspenseful chase sequence...but since the agents do not carry guns. Oh, enough said.

Despite all deletions and changes, "E.T." is one of Spielberg's finest films, taking us from our own childhood the dream of what it would be like to have an a special visitor from another world in your bedroom. Thanks to screenwriter Melissa Mathison, the film brings us back to our childhood innocence, remembering the dreams and hopes we all had for a better future. If we can be friendly with an alien from another world, we can get along with anybody.

Garner gives the Hand the Finger

ELEKTRA (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Watching Jennifer Garner in a billowing red dress wielding two dagger weapons might endear the prepubescent set but not me. Nevertheless, despite shortcomings in the script and character department, "Elektra" is not as bad as reputed to be and gets marginally better as it rolls along. It is not a Marvel adaptation to marvel home about, but it is no disaster either.

Garner plays the titled character, last seen in "Daredevil" where she was killed during combat. Now she is resurrected from the dead by her blind mentor, Stick (Terence Stamp), who had also trained Daredevil once upon a time in Marvel comic-book land. But instead of being a noble superheroine, Elektra is an assassin-for-hire, I think, though she seems to work exclusively for one agent. I also think she is hired to kill her enemies who mostly work for the Order of the Hand, a Japanese organization. The Hand is after the Treasure, and it is up to Elektra to prevent anyone from grabbing the Treasured Treasure. Prior to this underwhelmingly flimsy plot, Elektra is commissioned for a hit on her neighbors, a single father and his effusively smart daughter (played by Goran Visnjic and Kirsten Prout). Naturally, she has a Nikita conscience and chooses to save them from ninja assassins who are about to kill them as well. Whatever.

"Elektra" has its share of mediocre fight scenes, all edited with chainsaw ferocity rather than any real Zhang Zimou or Ang Lee flair. The movie has far too many plot holes (including a bare mention of Elektra's OCD) and a risible romantic subplot, though the special-effects and the supervillains are occasionally nifty. Still, the movie is all about intense close-ups of that angular face of Jennifer Garner's. I never bought her as an assassin, however, if nothing else, Garner has an electric presence on screen - she always seems adrift in her own thoughts and you can't help but wonder what she is thinking. Her face is the only thing that sizzles in "Elektra."

Ben Affleck as Daredevil?

DAREDEVIL (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

For some reason, the Marvel comic-book hero Daredevil has never been a favorite of mine. Maybe it is that red suit or the fact that he seemed more human than superhuman. Who knows. I still find Spider-Man to be the most effective superhero of all time because of his genuine flaws and the fact that he sometimes  failed (remember the death of Gwen Stacy?) Granted that Daredevil has his flaws but this big-screen version starring Ben Affleck rarely captures his humanity, and that is one of many reasons it doesn't work.

The opening sequence is promising as it details Daredevil's origins. As a kid living in Hell's Kitchen, his father, a boxer nicknamed the Devil (David Keith), is seen working for the mob. The kid is so distraught at seeing his father involved in such business that he accidentally gets sprayed with toxic chemicals. This leaves the kid with a permanent loss of sight that has enhanced his aural capabilities, to the point where traffic and other noises get raised to a high decibel level. Naturally, such capabilities help him fight neighborhood bullies, including having a sixth sense that somehow allows him to see visions in bluish color. Cut to twenty years later, Matt Murdock (Ben Affleck) is a blind lawyer by day, a superhero in tights at night. His mission is to get rid of crime in the neighborhood streets, which includes any minions working for cigar-chomping Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan), the resident crime boss of New York. For Kingpin to able to operate, he needs to get rid of Daredevil. He hires Bullseye (Colin Ferrell), an Irish psychopathic freak whose one novelty is being able to throw anything at an intended target without ever missing (until he runs into Daredevil). His specialty includes knives, darts, pins, playing cards and even peanuts! Don't let any swords get in his hands.

In the meantime, Matt has a fling with a limber woman named Elektra (Jennifer Garner), who is quite the super athlete, not to mention adept at the martial-arts. Unfortunately, she is on Kingpin's hit list since her father had worked for the big boss. Can Daredevil save her in time, or is Kingpin more than he bargained for?

"Daredevil" starts strong and then quickly dissipates into an empty shell of a movie. All we learn about Matt Murdock is that he is a vigilante, aiming for revenge for his father's death, and also a Catholic who goes to confession on a regular basis. As played by Affleck, there is not much more to the character and, frankly, Affleck is not capable of giving much either. There is no sense of charisma or spark to the character, and how the heck can this CGI Daredevil defy the laws of physics and gravity? He flies around town with the ease of Spider-Man - where he did acquire such superhuman strength? I thought he just had those miraculous senses! In fact, everyone in this movie defies the laws of gravity, including a completely unbelievable introductory fight scene between Elektra and Daredevil. I don't expect much believability in comic-book movies but there must be some sense of logic. It has become a cliche to copy the slow-motion CGI effects of "The Matrix" to the point of numbing repetition - how often can we see a character do a backflip in mid-air in slow-motion during a fight scene? Enough already.

If there is one aspect of "Daredevil" I truly enjoyed, it was Jennifer Garner's spunky, funny, humane performance as Elektra. She doesn't merit much screen time, but what there is enough to make me a fan (I hear that an "Elektra" movie is in the works). I have not seen her series "Alias" but I loved her brief role in "Catch Me if You Can." She has what the rest of the flatly mediocre "Daredevil" lacks: magic.

Ben Affleck as BATMAN? Rufus Sewell for your consideration

THE CAPED CRUSADER AND HIS CHASING AMY FIXATION

By Jerry Saravia

 I am so happy to now have been the only actor to play Superman and Batman

Ben Affleck never struck me as an incredibly charismatic actor, not in almost everything I've seen him do post-1990's. Affleck scored his finest performance ever in Kevin Smith's "Chasing Amy," a wonderfully humanistic performance with a fine reading of regret in his eyes when he did not (SPOILER ALERT!) get the girl. He had a bouncy comical part as an actor in "Shakespeare in Love," a nicely modulated role as a fellow Bostonian pal of Will Hunting in "Good Will Hunting," and he was tremendous and energetic as he parroted Alec Baldwin's scenery-chewing part from "Glengarry Glen Ross" in the otherwise underwhelming "Boiler Room." Then came tepid disasters with even more tepid performances in films such as "Gigli,' "Daredevil," "Surviving Christmas" (if you can make it past the first 10 minutes), "Reindeer Games" and so on ("Jersey Girl", by the way, is not as bad as its reputed to be). He has since proved himself as a film director, but not as an actor (he has actorly limits unlike his writing partner from the days of "Good Will Hunting," Matt Damon).

Warner Brothers made an announcement that Ben Affleck will play Batman in the "Man of Steel" sequel, "Batman vs. Superman." Only problem is that Affleck has a similarly identical body and similar facial, suave features as Henry Cavill, who of course will return as Superman (Man of Steel review). Nobody believe me? Do people forget that Affleck played the role of the late actor George Reeves in the film "Hollywoodland" (Reeves being the actor who played Superman in the live action series of yesteryear)? Something tells me that Christian Bale (who played the best Batman and Bruce Wayne roles) would've been more an apt choice or he might have been offered and declined (his price tag according to undetermined sources would have been 50 million dollars!) At this stage of the game, it is hard to say who could have played Batman but somebody should have chosen an actor who did not look like a duplicate of Henry Cavill - there has to be some contrast. I would have gone with Rufus Sewell myself, or maybe Bruce Campbell (now that would have been interesting).

Rufus Sewell as the Caped Crusader?

Rufus Sewell would have made a reflective contrast to Cavill's Superman. Anybody ever seen the highly underrated masterpiece, "Dark City"? Sewell went nuts as he tried to find out his identity in a world that was not what it seemed. And let's face it: any man who wears a Bat suit and parades at night in search of criminals has go to be, how can I put this, Bat-shit crazy? Sewell has eyes that bulge and that can be deeply serene and he shows his dark side beautifully, especially in "Dark City." There is something unsettling about him and that is what Batman needs from an actor (just like Christian Bale who showed the arrogance of Bruce Wayne and the fierceness of Batman).

But a lot of us may have to pause for reflection. When Michael Keaton was announced as the newest Batman in the Tim Burton film of 20-plus years ago, outrage was rampant amongst comic-book fans. The guy from "Mr. Mom" and "Beetlejuice" is going to play the Caped Crusader? I don't how many fans even care anymore when some of the most ardent fans even prefer Tim Burton's film over Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. So let's not write Affleck off completely, but let us pause for reflection and, yes, some momentary regret they didn't choose someone else. 

Slowness is the key to happiness

MONSIEUR IBRAHIM ET LES FLEURS DU CORAN (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Original review from 2003 screening)

"Monsieur Ibrahim" is the kind of film that recalls the neo-realism of the Italian cinema - it all takes place on a Parisian city street using an apartment and a grocery shop as its main focuses of action. That also means we have the typical Francois Truffaut kid of yesteryear (check out "400 Blows" as an example), the one who wants to see and live the world as an adult. There is also the gentle old man who knows the secrets to happiness, and so on. If you were a fan of "The Bicycle Thief" and "400 Blows" then, frankly, there is nothing here that would not provide an enlightening two hours of your time.

The Truffaut kid is Moses (Pierre Boulanger), a 16-year-old kid who wants a push out of his drab home. His angry father (Gilbert Melki) makes the kid wash the dishes, cook dinner and go grocery shopping. His father is so consumed by his own unhappiness (his wife had left him) that he forgets Moses's birthday, enabling the kid to make his dad remember by baking his own cake. Meanwhile, out on the Parisian streets, Moses frequents the grocery shop to talk to the owner, Monsieur Ibrahim (Omar Sharif), who knows the kid is stealing from him but he lets him get away with it, as long as he can call the kid Momo. There are also prostitutes out on the street whom Moses wants to sleep with - he uses the leftover money from the grocery store to pay for their services.

Now so far I have made no mention of Moses and Ibrahim's nationality. The simple reason is because it is irrelevant to their relationship. Having said that, Moses is Jewish and Ibrahim is Islamic and I suppose in this day and age, it is important to remember that racial boundaries do not always exists with people who need each other in some capacity (consider the American soldier and the Iraqi woman who have married recently in Iraq). Eventually, Moses's father splits, thinking he can't be a real father to his own son. The gentle Ibrahim takes Moses in, knowing all about Moses's family from the past. Ibrahim teaches the kid how to smile and how to enjoy slowness (the key to happiness) - something people in this country should start appreciating. The wise old man buys a red sports car and decides to go to his own hometown in Turkey, letting Moses tag along to discover a whole new world.

Most of "Monsieur Ibrahim" is compelling and almost magical in its depiction of a lost world we can only imagine. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that allows us to watch and listen closely to its characters and their surroundings. There is a breathless moment in a church that will keep you captivated in ways only foreign films can manage to do so with sparse surroundings. My one gripe is the Parisian location - it looks like a street from a studio, not a real street in the neo-realism sense. Still, almost every shot is involving and inescapably clinging - you can't turn away from the screen.

In the latter regard, Omar Sharif has a sage-like appearance that keeps us glued to our theater seats. The 71-year-old actor, best known for "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dr. Zhivago," has the presence and authority of a man who has lived a full life. He wishes his life were better, and that he had more money, but he knows he at least lived a life. It is the sad irony that he misses his hometown that is part of the film's heart and soul. Sharif wraps it around with his astute sense of craftiness and wittiness (as well as the twinkle in his smile) that makes this one of the better looks at old age since "About Schmidt."

The Cosby Show starring Riggs and Murtaugh

LETHAL WEAPON 4 (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Who would have thought that a decade later the "Lethal Weapon" franchise would turn into an unfunny, Cosby-like comedy about family values with some exploitative violence thrown in. Not only that, but remove all the elements that made the first three films exciting and fresh.

Let's consider the first "Lethal Weapon," a tough-as-nails buddy-buddy police actioner with a badass Mel Gibson as the suicidal Martin Riggs. Here was a ticking time bomb ready to die at any given moment - regardless of the consequences. Let's also consider Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover), a family man who served in Vietnam and is getting ready to face old age. The two were an unbeatable pair, and they also faced one of the best villains in the history of action films, played by Gary Busey! The point was that a mutual camaraderie existed between them.

The second film was purely action and laughs with the very funny and oily Joe Pesci as the accountant, Leo Getz ("Whatever you want, Leo gets!"). It also set the standard for one of the best, most explosive action scenes ever. The third film went further with the comedy, and too much action. There was little or no character development, and the introduction of the Internal Affairs officer, Lorna (Rene Russo), resulted in one of the weakest entries of the series.

So what's left in "Lethal Weapon 4"? Not much, I am afraid. Riggs is now a respectable citizen with short hair, ready to settle down, and no longer lethal (Is this the same suicidal freak from the first film?) Chris Rock is shown briefly and doesn't figure much in the story, except that he gets Murtaugh's daughter pregnant. Murtaugh is unaware that Rock is the father, and thinks Chris Rock is gay. Riggs's girlfriend, Lorna, is also pregnant and wants to get married! Funny, indeed. Leo Getz is back as a private investigator, and he is unbearable throughout with his continual "whatevers" and "okays." The thin story has to do with Chinese gangsters conspiring in some threadbare plot about counterfeit money and led by a formidable villain (Jet Li), a martial-arts expert - a true lethal weapon. And there are the requisite explosions, implausible action scenes, and typically racist jokes aimed squarely at the Chinese.

"Lethal Weapon 4" looks like it was assembled rather than directed. One car chase here, one fist fight there, one obvious joke here, and so on. There's no plot or story to speak of. No shred of acting skills either, despite the high-powered cast, although Jet Li says a lot with one stare, here and there. It's like a tired parody of the "Lethal Weapon" experience and its ickily sentimental, heavily overwrought last passage - involving Pesci's unintentionally funny monologue and dual pregnancies - left me in a state of dumbfounded shock. There's never any sense of danger or peril, and no sense of communion or camaraderie between the characters. It's "Lethally Bland Weapon" for dummies.