Computerized, digitized dud

SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Originally viewed on October, 2004)

The critics have been kind to "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." I suppose they imagined that sepia-drenched vistas with giant flying robots and flying airstrips borrowed from the futuristic world of "Metropolis" and "Just Imagine" and pop sci-fi tales makes for good cinema. It can...but it also helps if something of interest happens in those vistas. "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" is one of the emptiest, tedious action-adventure movies I've seen in a long time. It is so dull, so underimagined on a story level, so devoid of any charm or wit, that you'll leave the theater wondering why this was even made. Did the director even look at the dailies?

As far as I can tell, there is a news reporter (Polly Perkins) played by Gwyneth Paltrow who seeks information on some murdered scientists. One such scientist foretells of some calamity coming their way. Next thing, we know there are dozens of ships coming into New York City circa 1937. They are not ships though, they are giant robots who parade around New York City until they reach some perimeter to do something dastardly. The robots were apparently sent by Dr. Totenkopf (played by a holographic Sir Laurence Olivier) but the reason is unclear - I suspect it is nothing more than world domination. Enter the devil-may-care Sky Captain (Jude Law) whose job is to zoom in and out of cityscapes in his jet without hitting any buildings or billboards, especially when he makes those sharp turns. He wants to wipe out all these robots and hunt and capture the nefarious doctor. Polly wants to come along for the ride so she can take a snapshot or two. Of course, this Polly is so picky that she will not take pictures of just anything, especially when there are only two shots left.

I wish I could say there is more to "Sky Captain" - some level of surprise and adventure to keep us giddy and excited. Director Kenny Conran has fallen in love with these vistas so much that he assumes they are enough to sustain feature-length. Not so, not when the characters are so disengaged and so humorless. There is barely much of a story and the characters are so paper-thin as to be thinner than paint thinner. You know those nasty paper cuts you can get sometimes - these characters are even thinner than that. They are as robotic as the giant robots themselves. The whole film is an attempt to fashion a world of innocence that never existed except in those pop sci-fi tales and sci-fi movies of yesteryear. That's an admirable idea but it is just an idea. If "Sky Captain" were to be judged on visual aspects alone, it would suffice but then George Lucas has created far more amazing vistas in the "Star Wars" films. Nobody recommends "Star Wars" on special-effects alone.

Jude Law attempts to have a good time, but he seems withdrawn from the adventure - as if it he was always hot and bothered. Gwyneth Paltrow, an actress who showed range in "The Talented Mr. Ripley," coasts along on looks alone - as if the look of a 30's woman with Veronica Lake hair was enough. Paltrow should do glamour photos for Elle or Vogue, not for a movie as insubstantial as this one. Only Angelina Jolie as the eyepatch-wearing Franky, Sky Captain's former flame and a damn good pilot herself, shows any sense of joy - too bad, her performance is nothing more than a cameo (and why wasn't she this good as Lara Croft?) Giovanni Ribisi as a gum-chewing sidekick of Sky Captain's has the right attitude but his performance is also short-shrifted and eclipsed by the visuals. As for Laurence Olivier, all I can ask is, why?

"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" is a big, lumbering, colossally boring, noisily incoherent mess of a film. It pays homage to "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "King Kong," "Buck Rogers" and even "Jurassic Park," nary the verve, the passion, the humor, the human interest or the excitement (I think I may have spotted one last-minute escapist moment for what is supposedly an escapist adventure). "The Rocketeer," a delirious homage to 30's and 40's serials, had the right attitude and some genuine excitement, and it evoked a time of innocence. This movie is a computerized, digitized dud.

Action movie violence on super latte overdrive

SHOOT 'EM UP (2007)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I've seen countless action movies and countless action movie parodies/send-ups and they all inevitably cancel each other out. How many different ways can there be to show bullets being fired from a gun? Exploding vehicles? Car crashes? Not many, and yet something like "Shoot 'Em Up" arrives and makes it seem all new again by infusing a cartoonish mentality.

Right at the start of the movie, Clive Owen is sitting on a bench and eating a carrot in what is perhaps the only quiet scene in the entire movie. Before long a man is hellbent on murdering a pregnant woman, and they both run past Owen. Feeling a sense of duty, Owen chases the guy, impales him with a carrot ("Eat your vegetables"), almost saves the pregnant woman, shoots her umbilical cord since she has just given birth, and evades certain death by using oil slick to slide away and shoot everyone in sight. Now Owen is stuck with a baby! He runs around town evading more bad guys by pumping them full of lead and keeps running. Eventually he secures help from a prostitute, DQ, played by Monica Belluci who plays her cliched character with far more elegance and flair than perhaps required.

Mr. Hertz (Paul Giamatti) is the head villain, insistent on capturing Owen and trying to stay one step ahead. The minimal plot has to do with a Democratic presidential candidate who hires Mr. Hertz to find the baby since the candidate is dying of cancer and needs the bone marrow from the infant! I don't want to give away the twist since the idea is sure to drive most conservatives up the wall, screaming in hysterics! All pregnant women better watch out for Mr. Hertz and his minions!

"Shoot 'Em Up" is a delirious, wildly overactive action movie spoof - the only known category this movie could be placed in since it can't be taken seriously. It is more appropriately a live-action cartoon, which seems to liberally borrow from John Woo, Tarantino and the Coen Bros. and mixes it all up in a blender, with an extra dose of caffeine. Interestingly, "Shoot 'Em Up" doesn't feature mindless action - it is action with wit, purpose and clever imagination. I love the parachute sequence where gravity has some limits and the hero flies around like Superman (albeit with more pizazz than Brandon Routh). The gun battles are ferocious and in-your-face but not mind-numbing as say "Last Man Standing," an unwatchable Bruce Willis western remake of "A Fistful of Dollars" that featured more gun battles than an average Clint Eastwood western. Whereas "Last Man Standing" and possibly any number of trashy cop flicks/neo-noir thrillers from the last two decades like "Last Boy Scout" focused on sickeningly and repulsively violent carnage and a high body count, "Shoot 'Em Up" has flair and a definite sense of style at work, upping the ante on the absurd and the ridiculous. Consider the scene where Owen leaves a baby on a carousel. The hit men arrive and Owen sees them, so he shoots the carousel so it can spin around and, well, you get the idea! And how many movies show a woman with a baby hiding out inside a tank in a museum? How many show inconceivable booby-traps developed by the sullen hero in the matter of seconds before the enemies arrive? Or how many more would dare show Owen making love to Belluci while shooting the enemies that lurk around the corner?

Though occasionally repetitive and wearying, "Shoot 'Em Up" is entertaining and chock full of blood-splattered ultraviolence yet always delivered with a wink. It is cartoonish to the extreme and more over-the-top than a Starbucks mocha latte with whipped cream. Come to think of it, the movie is like drinking a latte - you'll drink it, feel energetic, then mercilessly drained and then, just maybe, you may want to repeat the experience.

Schickel entertains but does little to enlighten

SCORSESE ON SCORSESE (2004)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

(Original review from 2004)

To be called America's best director is to put a lot of pressure on anyone. You wouldn't know it from watching "Scorsese on Scorsese," the latest documentary on the renown director that mostly recycles elements from past documentaries. It does have some new info that will please many, and will likely underwhelm everyone else. Entertaining in its own right, it seems slightly rushed.

To be fair, I am a huge Martin Scorsese fan and I've read just about every book that exists on the man. I've of course seen almost every film he's made, and I am well aware of his passion for cinema, preserving cinema, and his passion for making films. In "Scorsese on Scorsese," we definitely sense his passionate commitment to an art form that is rarely seen as such. Written and directed by Time critic Richard Schickel, we get mile-a-minute commentary by Scorsese on his background, his moviegoing days when he saw Howard Hawks's "The Thing" with a packed house, his anecdotes on meeting members of the mafia in his childhood, his films ranging from "Who's That Knocking at My Door" to his latest endeavor, "The Aviator," and his rebuttal on criticisms of stereotyping Italian-Americans as mobsters.

There is much to enjoy in "Scorsese on Scorsese" overall. I liked Scorsese's comments about his sarcastic mother, especially in his documentary, "Italianamerican," the nailbiting experience of making "The King of Comedy," the thriller aspects of "Cape Fear," the dementia and obsessive compulsive behavior of Howard Hughes in "The Aviator," the spiritual aspects of the controversial "Last Temptation of Christ," and one revealing tidbit about his father's similarities to Newland Archer's in "The Age of Innocence." Unfortunately, not much insight is given to films such as "Casino," "Bringing Out the Dead," "New York Stories" (surely working with Woody Allen and Francis Coppola on an anthology merits a comment or two), the black comedy classic "After Hours," or even some of his early short films such as "The Big Shave." Granted, not every documentary can cover every film of a director's career yet the documentary on Scorsese from the series, "The Directors," covered more ground in an hour's time. Here, we are afforded an hour and a half and there is still something lacking, such as the spiritual, moralistic weight of his work and why his films are typically not financial successes. Could it be that his films often feature immoral protagonists and that we get an interior emotional experience as if we were inside their heads? No mention is made of this in Schickel's film - he just parades from one film to the next, eschewing any context.

For Scorsese fans, this will be illuminating enough and some new facts are revealed. Still, for those who expect much more, it short-shrifts the acclaimed director's career more than expected.

Bad workplace, profits higher than ever

WAL-MART: THE HIGH COST OF LOW PRICE (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Originally reviewed in 2006)

I've been in a Wal-Mart a few times in the past. This was some time ago but my lasting impression of that store was how overstuffed it was. Products were all over the store and didn't all seem to fit into the shelves where they belonged, no employees were around to help with assistance, the aisles were too narrow for those damn carts to get around, and children wandered around aimlessly. In short, as a customer, I was dissatisfied with the store. And that is the perspective missing in this documentary, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price," namely, the customer's point-of-view. It is not a major flaw but it would have added more interest to the film's hugely negative outlook on this billion-dollar retailer corporation.

We learn that Wal-Mart drives away almost all other businesses, including mom and pop stores, paint stores, cafeterias, etc. The local businesses in the small towns are driven away because Wal-Mart receives subsidies that the smaller businesses can't receive. Some of Wal-Mart's subsidies are excruciatingly high, which also diminishes economical support for education, firefighters, and all other services that taxpayers pay for.

If those factors aren't bad enough, consider how Wal-Mart treats its employees. The employees can't find affordable health care through the company so some opt for welfare or Medicaid. Employees must always be working, sometimes off the clock. Surveillance cameras keep an eye on the employees but not the customers or the vast parking lots where kidnappings and murders frequently occur. Female workers are seen as useless, and if you are a black woman seeking a promotion, heaven help you. And for those who rightly complain about racist comedians, you might be truly offended by how Wal-Mart treats a black employee - let's just say it is morally reprehensible. Some lawsuits filed by employees are won, others are never considered whether it is based on racism or any kind of discrimination. Meanwhile, despite dissatisfaction from employees and managers and district managers, they all keep playing the game and smiling. And the CEO of Wal-Mart, Lee Scott, keeps talking with a straight face about all the high profits (which keep increasing year after year).

It is doubtful that anyone watching this documentary will not feel a smidgeon of intense dislike for such a reputable store. Negative reports have consumed the media for years about Wal-Mart's practices (especially with illegal immigrants) and their factories in China, but never have we been privy to the overall effect Wal-Mart has had on America. You almost feel that, within a few years, Wal-Mart will be the only mega store you can shop in. Strangely enough, that is the key ingredient missing in the documentary. Why does Wal-Mart rake in the big bucks? Because of the customers. If nobody shopped at any of the Wal-Mart stores in the entire world, then they couldn't make money. Yet the figures are in: as of November 2006, the retailer giant's revenue was at least 26 billion more than the previous year!

Robert Greenwald ("Outfoxed," "Steal this Movie") directed this documentary and does an admirable job of assembling footage of pro-Wal-Mart commercials intercut with facts and figures and key interviews (his sound mixing could use some work since music and soundbites are often at the same audio level). In many ways, Greenwald wants you to act accordingly and abolish any new Wal-Marts (some towns have successfully managed to do that). But, once again, it all boils down to the customers. If they didn't shop at Wal-Mart, there would be no profit. Sort of brings a new meaning to the phrase, 'The customer is always right."

Your wish is my command

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3: THE DREAM WARRIORS (1987)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

(Originally written in 1999)

In light of the recent resurgence of horror movies instigated by the success of "Scream" and more respectable fare like "The Sixth Sense," I felt it was necessary to take a trip back in time to my nostalgic years, particularly 1987. This was the year of the Freddy Krueger craze, and everyone was talking about the latest "Elm Street" sequel. I saw it with a friend in Douglaston, Queens, New York, and I was immediately caught up in the hype. Granted, I saw the original "Nightmare on Elm Street" years earlier and it was scary stuff, but this one was so tongue-in-cheek and goofy and thrilling that I found it predated "Scream" by a decade. It was a sequel that tipped on the edge of self-parody but never over-the-top, and it was the first time Freddy was jocose before using his talon glove to slash the sleeping kids.

The heroine who put Freddy away in the original, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), is back as a psychiatrist visiting the last of the Elm Street kids at a mental hospital. They all have seen Freddy, and now Nancy will try to help them control their dreams, prescribing sleeping pills much to the chagrin of the hospital staff (which includes Craig Wasson and Laurence Fishburne!) There is also Patricia Arquette on hand (in her debut role) as Kristen, a supposedly suicidal patient who can kick ass when needed. Oh, and how can one forget Jon Saxon reprising his role of Nancy's father, a police captain too keen on alcohol. But Freddy has a way with words...taunting them any way he can.

The first Elm Street is still the best and the most original, but the third has moments of humor mixed with horror and satire that elevates it above similar movies. And do check out Patricia Arquette as the saintly, sweet Kristen - beautiful, dreamy, but she can fight like a true Dream Warrior. A romance could've been instigated by Nancy and the good doctor, nicely played by Craig Wasson. That and a rather disappointing finish do not undermine the colorful young patients (Ken Sagoes as the outspoken Kincaid, Jennifer Rubin as Taryn who sees herself as a punk rocker) and the truly thrilling nightmare sequences. One with a kid strapped to a bed by wagging tongues has to be seen to be believed. Goofy, taut and often scary enough (wait till you get a load of Amanda Krueger), "Nightmare on Elm Street 3" is a dizzying ride at the movies.

Too much mojo

AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The original "Austin Powers" was no great shakes but it was more fun than this monotonous, joyless sequel. That is not to say that this is a bad film - there are moments of great black humor - but it is too long, disjointed, gross, and silly to make me want to get involved in any future Austin Powers adventures.

The film starts off well with hairy-chested, 60's reject Austin (Mike Myers) having a romp in the hay with a beautiful Elizabeth Hurley. It turns out she is a Fem-Robot and fires bullets from her nipples!!! Then we are treated to a hysterical, off-the-wall dance number with Austin's derriere serving as the butt of jokes, no pun intended. Then there is the mysterious Dr. Evil (Mike Myers, again) who is soft-spoken and fights with a Ku Klux Klan member at a Jerry Springer show. His dastardly plans are to go back in time to the 1960's and steal Austin's mojo - his forceful sexual prowess in liquid form! Why Dr. Evil wants it, and plans on destroying Washington, D.C. with a death ray from a "Death Star," I am not sure.

Austin's shenanigans with the beautiful and sexy spy Felicity Shagwell (Heather Graham) make up for some of the film's dead spots. There is an uncomfortably unfunny Scottish henchman named Fat Bastard (an unrecognizable Mike Myers) who smells and humps and thumps like a Tyrannosaurus Rex. The joke involving his feces is as grossly underimagined as you might think, but this character quickly grows tiresome and has none of the spark of Myer's Scottish father in the underrated "So I Married an Axe Murderer."

Heather Graham seems to have been on a slump since her success with "Boogie Nights," and here she is bland and seemingly unfit for the crazy universe she is in. She looks bored each time she shares a scene with Austin. When Graham dulls my senses in a movie, you know you are in cinematic trouble.

"Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me" works best when Dr. Evil appears and his counterpart, Mini-Me, and thus I enjoyed their conference scenes. I also liked Seth Green as Dr. Evil's spoiled son, and it is a pleasure to see a cameo by Tim Robbins as the President of the United States. But Myers unfolds his bag of tricks and jokes prematurely and his one-note persona ("Crazy, baby, yeah" or "Shall we shag?") grows repetitious. I was ready to say to Austin, "Zip it." Save for some brilliantly funny gags and one-liners, "Austin Powers" is too dependable on his mojo to really work.

A S#*t Shift

NIGHT SHIFT (1982)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 

"Night Shift" has great comic ideas but it never fully realizes them. It is the kind of comedy that believes its ideas are good enough for laughs by definition, yet it never proves why.

Henry Winkler is Chuck Lumley, a quiet morgue attendant who reluctantly works a night shift. He needs his peace and quiet until he gets a new partner named Bill (Michael Keaton, in his debut performance). Bill is the kind of incessant pain-in-the-neck who's always talking about harebrained ideas, like feeding tuna to fish! To make matters worse, Bill uses their hearse for his limousine service. Chuck's home life is no big improvement, including living with a fiancee who thinks she is too fat and suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (in the days before such a term was coined). Finally, there is Belinda (Shelley Long), a hooker with a heart of gold, who no longer has a pimp since he's been murdered. So Chuck and Bill decide to be her pimp, as well as service a bunch of other hookers with a benefits package! The pimping business and the limousine service are run at the morgue, including indulging in wild parties.

"Night Shift" sports a certain ingenuity in its setting and wild comic premise. The end result, however, doesn't elicit much in the way of a comedy or a black comedy. The fault lies with the screenplay, which hardly milks any laughs out of its plot or characters. Director Ron Howard often shows sincerity in a plot that doesn't require it. And a subplot about a pair of pimp killers (one of them is played by stand-up comic and "Law and Order" star Richard Belzer) who want a piece of the action seems to come from another movie altogether.

Henry Winkler is no real help either, showing indifference to the situations around him. Except for a hysterically funny scene involving Keaton with a tape recorder, there are no big laughs to be had. Michael Keaton reaches high but never fully delivers - being terminally annoying is not funny. Same with the miscasting of Shelley Long as the TOO NICE hooker - so nice that she is hardly credible as a New York streetwalker. Meg Ryan would have been a better choice.

The movie picks up some pace towards the end when Chuck suddenly goes ballistic as everything around him crumbles. It is the smartest move in a movie that is fatally inert at its core with indifference being the key word. My advice: sleep it off during the graveyard shift.