The Messiah is more popular than the Beatles

SON OF MORNING (2011)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Son of Morning" has an ingenious and timely premise - what if someone was mistakenly billed as the Messiah when in fact it is all a big misunderstanding. What happens when the media milks this sort of stuff for all it is worth and you gain not just fifteen minutes of fame but, what I like to refer to as, 150 minutes of fame. A clever premise with the religious angle but the movie never quite fulfills its promise.

A stressed-out copywriter named Philip (Joseph Cross) is living with his church-going mother (Lorraine Bracco). One day, on his day off from work, Philip's father is home and commits suicide by hanging himself! Philip cannot function with this mess, nor with work which he tries vainly to succeed in (though he is unable to come up with a good idea for a gerbil-as-its-sponsor commercial). He has a quickie with some club girl (Tony Soprano's daughter Jamie-Lynn Sigler) but that also feels inadequate. A kind unemployed man (Danny Glover) offers him sound advice and Philip not only gives him a twenty-dollar bill, he quits his job to work at a cafe. But when he goes to church with his mother, he yells from his pew and blood trickles from his eye. Philip's moment of rage is caught by a reporter, Josephine (Heather Graham), and is inadvertently referred to as a sign of stigmata - he is not only the Messiah but he might solve the solar crisis!

Director Yaniv Raz juggles a few ideas here but he never fleshes them out. The movie is technically entertaining and Raz uses vast spaces, especially hotel lobbies and hospital rooms, imaginatively. I also love some of the absurd humor that, occasionally, hits some high notes (Josephine's bit about this new Messiah being more popular than, oh, just more popular than the Beatles is the movie's best line). Danny Glover's sunny disposition about life gives the film a lift, a sense of purpose, but it is unfortunately never followed through. The movie rushes itself to get to a simplistic though valuable last scene that could used more substance. We get too many scenes of fast-motion trick photography and wild parties with many women, but there is nothing tangible for the satire to hang onto. The film appears to go in the direction of how the media and politicians can use Philip's newfound status for their own needs but it stops short of going there (at an 80-minute running time, it definitely falls short). Philip also has nothing to say about religion or being the alleged Son of the Son of God. The guy is a nervous wreck who just needs his prescription medication to stop the blood tears. He just simply ran out of medication. What a buzz kill.

I am in love with your family

IN AMERICA (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

After seeing "In America," Jim Sheridan's new film, I was pleasantly surprised. I was surprised because the work is apolitical, which is atypical of Sheridan, known for strong political stories such as "In the Name of the Father" and "The Boxer." "In America" is my favorite kind of film, an observational story of people without subjecting them to a plot.

The people are an immigrant family, arriving from Ireland and Canada via New York City. Travelling by station wagon, they eventually find a run-down apartment occupied by drug dealers and junkies. The apartment they get is spacious and occupied by pigeons, but they make it as homely as they can. John and Sarah (Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton) are the parents of two young smiling daughters, Christie and Ariel (Sarah Bolger and Emma Bolger). Christie narrates the story, which is as it should be, and occasionally we see glimpses of her camcorder and what she catches in her daily life. The neighbors she and her family see exist as fleeting characters whom we mostly hear in the background. The only neighbor of this apartment we get to know is Mateo (Djimon Hounson), a painter who is angry and yells at everyone (his door has a painted sign that reads "Keep Out.") Eventually, the two girls trick or treat at his door on Halloween, and he unexpectedly welcomes them in.

Meanwhile, John is an unemployed actor who can't seem to facilitate an emotional expression, so he becomes a cab driver in the meantime. Sarah gets a job at a nearby ice cream parlor. There are still problems with money at the beginning. John gambles all their money on an E.T. doll at an amusement park (just after seeing the film at the local theater). He also carries an air conditioner in the sweltering summer heat only to realize he needs a three-pronged adapter. Sarah and his girls smile at his frustration. But can John ever learn to express a singular emotion? Will Sarah ever get him to admit he feels something for the tragic death of their young son? And will Mateo ever feel anything beyond anger?

Okay, so I have simplified the story of "In America" to that of a Hollywood tearjerker. It is not, so shame on you for thinking so. Yes, "In America" is a sentimental film but it is also magical, ingenious in its simplicity and subtlety, and never overtly sentimental in its approach. "In America" works as moments in time, reflective of the best kind of films that always work in that manner. No one can forget John's own deeds, whether he is carrying the air conditioner or playing hide and seek with his kids until he faces his wife and they make love - a truly tender sequence in itself. There is also the moment he is confronted by a junkie whom he always lends money to, until the junkie holds him at knifepoint. The surprise is how the confrontation ends. But the moment that feels real and inspired is when Mateo confronts John and tells him he is in love with their family - mostly, Mateo is telling him that he feels their love, something which is missing in his own life.

"In America" is not a perfect film, and the ending feels a little pat. Still, it is something of an unusual homage to "E.T." and the 1980's without superfluous 80's songs (there are mercifully few delivered) and fashion styles of the decade. This is a story of immigrants in modern times, trying to adapt to a strange, weird city and to live on as a close-knit family. Whether it is New York City or Paris, it doesn't matter. The issues of love and compassion are delivered in a timeless manner, and that is what makes "In America," in its simplicity and understated style, such a wonderful movie experience.

Smokey Bites the Dust

SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT PART 3 (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

In the last few months, I have watched Jackie Gleason at his very best as the irascible busdriver Ralph on TV's classic series "The Honeymooners." Every time I watch, I never tire of seeing Ralph's wild antics, bizarre schemes, fighting with Norton or enduring fat jokes and being one-upped by his wife Alice. But in the 1980's, with the exception of "Nothing in Common" with Tom Hanks, Jackie Gleason was badly used and showed little of his blazing, larger-than-life charisma that made him such a star in his prime. 1983 might have been the unkindest year for Gleason having starred in two rotten sequels. One was the lifeless "The Sting II." The other was the far more execrable "Smokey and the Bandit Part 3," a truly moronic and wasteful use of celluloid. You know it is bad when Burt Reynolds doesn't even agree to star in it, except for a useless cameo at the end (I don't mean to ruin it for anyone).

According to Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide, the initial preview screenings for this movie showed Jackie Gleason as Sheriff Buford T. Justice and as the Bandit, hence the original title of the film was "Smokey is the Bandit." Then they changed it completely with Jerry Reed as the Bandit since the audiences were initially confused. True or not, it deserves further investigation into what might have been. (UPDATE: Apparently, this is no hoax - it is true. Check out the picture below).

Smokey is the Bandit

I wish not to spend more time on "Smokey and the Bandit Part 3" except to say that Jerry Reed is indeed the Bandit, overplaying it without the smooth charm of Burt Reynolds. All the gags fall flat on their face and there is not one chuckle to be had from any of this - Burt and Sally Field are sorely missed. Jackie Gleason has a nifty scene at the beginning where he is dressed as a general in front of an American flag (just like in the opening moments of "Patton") and talks about his past adventures trying to capture the elusive Bandit. The audience is barely awake listening to this man. Nuff' said.

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."