Love at first bite with Langella

DRACULA (1979)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

When I first saw "Dracula" in a theater in 1979, I was taken by the moody atmosphere and the building tension. It wasn't until Lucy appeared with bloodshot eyes that I got scared and had to be taken out of the theater by my father. Since then, I finally had seen it in its entirety a few times. John Badham's version of the oft-told tale is elegant and frightening, far surpassing any version since (especially Coppola's overblown, flashy and rather creepy epic overall).

Frank Langella plays the Count with a handsome veneer and impressive charm (at least he can charm the young ladies). This Count doesn't exhibit ratlike, monstrous features nor does he have bloodshot, piercing eyes like Christopher Lee or Bela Lugosi. He is smooth and refined with eyes that slightly fluctuate, though I'd never dare say he is obviously menacing. This is an interesting interpretation of the most filmed cinematic vampire since Lugosi and Max Schreck's memorable performances 50 years earlier. In fact, I do not think Langella bared any fangs either except for one shot.

W.D. Richter's screenplay varies greatly from Bram Stoker's text. For one, the story begins at sea with Dracula on board the schooner, the Demeter, that arrives in Whitby. There he is discovered wearing a fur coat by Mina Van Helsing (Jan Francis), which may be strange to Stoker fans since Van Helsing did not have a daughter in the novel. Also, we are denied the usual meeting between Jonathan Harker and Dracula over the Carfax Abbey property in Transylvania (or maybe this is a good thing). When Mina gets bitten by good old Drac, her father, Van Helsing (Laurence Olivier), decides he wants to exact revenge against the Count. In the novel, Van Helsing merely decides to help kill Dracula based on his knowledge of vampires. Also noteworthy is the time placement of the story since it doesn't seem to be the 19th century anymore considering we see an antique car! And let's not forget that sunlight does not kill Dracula in the novel either - it merely makes him powerless during the day (at least we get a hint of that when Drac walks around his castle in daylight hours without any rays of light hitting him). That sunlight could kill a vampire is ultimately an invention of F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" in 1922, not Stoker's. Another odd image is seeing Dracula riding a horse on a foggy day, which means it may be early evening!

Still, this is one of the most fascinating of the "Dracula" adaptations I've seen. My favorite will always be a toss-up between the original "Nosferatu" and its remake by Werner Herzog, the most emotional of all Dracula stories. This film is not a standard horror film, though there are some horrific moments. It plays up the notion that Dracula is a sensual, smoldering, sexual creature rather than an animal with no soul. In that respect, Frank Langella (who played the role on stage) plays it up to the hilt and delivers - using his body language and his fluid lines with the mark of a real actor. He is a tall, charismatic and towering presence and brings Dracula alive with more relish and attitude than most others who have attempted the role.

Other actors do not fare as well. Donald Pleasance as Dr. Jack Seward does the best he can - I don't think he ever gave a bad performance. Laurence Olivier seems to be sleepwalking through his role as Professor Van Helsing and his confrontations with Drac are less than thrilling - he is no Edward Van Sloan. And Trevor Eve seems more suited to the cast of "The Shooting Party" than a character like Jonathan Harker. He is so bland, pale and lifeless that I swore he might be a vampire himself.

On the plus side, Kate Nelligan is a remarkably alive Lucy Seward. She sparkles in every scene and has an aura of something both romantic and mysterious about her. She is also compatible with Langella and their love scenes are dazzling. Jan Francis is a convincing Mina and seems to really come from another era. Her scary scene as a vampire (the reason I walked out of the movie the first time) is startling and unnerving, miles ahead of the pretensions of Coppola's version.

"Dracula" is not a great movie but it is romantic, lush, mysterious and beautiful (the colors are drained to such an extent that it appears to be a black-and-white film). A witty script by W.D. Richter and imaginative direction by John Badham rises this "Dracula" above most others.

You don't want to play Helicopter Hamburger?

DON'T LET THE RIVERBEAST GET YOU! (2012)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Those clever guys keep milking their New Hampshire digs for all they are worth, and boy is it delicious milk! "Don't Let the Riverbeast Get You!" is a fun-filled, deliberately tasteful comical horror film that never takes itself too seriously and gently pokes you, nudging you to believe this is all some sort of jokey picture.

The best tutor that Rivertown has ever seen, Neil Stuart (Matt Farley), has just come back to town after being derided as an RB! He claimed a monster lived in the woods called the Riverbeast. A muckracking reporter, Sparky Watts (Kyle Kochan), wrote about Neil's claims as outlandish and sheer rubbish, earning Neil the nickname of RB. He also lost the woman of his dreams,  Emmaline (Elizabeth M. Peterson), who is marrying another guy with a son who loves to play "Helicopter Hamburger." There is one person who believes Neil and his claims of having spotted the mythical Riverbeast, Allie (Sharon Scalzo), the student from finishing school whom Neil is tutoring.

"Don't Let the Riverbeast Get You!" has a little bit of everything. It's got picnic babes, babes wearing towels, babes dancing on the street corner to a guy playing guitar, the Riverbeast monster who looks likes a modern-day Gill Man, cat litter as a plot device, a little rockabilly, a harmonica-playing big-game hunter who looks for the monster in the woods, a few tastefully done murders, Neil and his friends who discuss the Riverbeast over chocolate milk and cupcakes, red flashes on the screen as a warning that the monster is nigh, etc. There is much tongue-in-cheek humor throughout and it is all innocuous fun with precious little gore and hardly any nudity (recall how I mentioned that this is a deliberately tasteful comical horror film). Also, the scenic vistas of New Hampshire and Connecticut add immeasurably to the film's slight tonal shifts, perpetuating the belief that only in a quaint small town would a Riverbeast problem occur.

Matt Farley is the star of the show, once again he has that presence that keeps you locked in on his every move. Same with Sharon Scalzo who is one of the most appealing presences I've seen since the last two outings by director Charles Roxburgh and his co-writer Matt Farley. The rest of the cast can't quite measure up but they try their damnedest.

Matt Farley and director Charles Roxburgh have delivered another tasty and delectable treat (do check out "Freaky Farley" and "Monsters, Marriage and Murder in Manchvegas".)  I have a feeling, someday, that these guys will dispense with monsters in rivers and just deal exclusively with their characters. Yes, New Hampshire, they are talents to be reckoned with. Make it a more strict love story between Farley and Scalzo, and throw in their repertory of local actors. Maybe throw in a monster too.

Very bad form, Peter Pan

HOOK (1991)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Hook" is the most bombastic, depressing, overdone and highly ineffectual fantasy film ever made. What is most depressing is that director Steven Spielberg made it, the very same cinematic wizard who awed us with "E.T." This is not the Peter Pan sequel many of us have been clamoring for, and I suspect that it will always be considered a failure in every respect.

Peter Pan (Robin Williams) is now an adult and a parent. He is a successful lawyer who has virtually ignored his children and his wife (Caroline Goodall) because of his heavy workload and his constantly ringing cell phone. Peter never makes it to his son's baseball games, and is seemingly attached to his cell phone. They all go on a Christmas trip to see Granny Wendy (Maggie Smith) while Peter makes some attempt to reconnect to his family. Before you know it, Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) has kidnapped Peter's kids to Never-Never Land while the pint-sized Tinker Bell (Julia Roberts) wakes Peter up since he is unaware of his past exploits to save his kids. What does he have, amnesia? Ultimately, Peter reunites with the Lost Boys (who love to have food fights) to find his inner child. How 90's!

"Hook" is full of action but it is misdirected with overstylized, brightly lit sets that are likely to give you a migraine. Every scene is scored with thunderous overkill by John Williams and so darn loud that it will cause your eardrums to burst. Showing Peter Pan as a bloated fool who confronts mermaids wearing Day-Glo and punkish, unlikable Lost Boys who practically abuse him as if he were in boot camp is not the fanciful, magical tale I know. The ending reeks of so much mawkishness that I felt I was showered with an emotional waterfall of fake tears. And we do not have just one climax but at least three by my count. "Hook" is Spielberg's biggest folly since "1941."

Dances with Arrows, or how Gary Cooper played Dracula

ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES (1991)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

As legend would have it, Robin Hood was a man of the people, one who identified with the poverty of the English people and would steal from the rich and give to the poor. His determination resulted in ongoing feuds with princes and paupers and those whom he stole from. The legend resulted in one terrific film with Errol Flynn back in 1938 called "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (it is still the definitive version). There was also the more mature, older Robin trying to have a romantic relationship with a suicidal Maid Marian in "Robin and Marian," starring Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn. In 1991, Kevin Costner and director Kevin Reynolds had the temerity to bring back Robin Hood to the screen with Costner's American accent almost intact as a sour but also determined Robin. It almost felt like the end of cinema as we knew it. Casting Costner was like casting Gary Cooper as Dracula! Yes, brave casting indeed, but could Costner do it?

"Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" has Costner as a depressed Robin with only occasional flashes of humor. His depression stems from the fact that he has just arrived back from the Crusades after a few years, leaving with a Moor named Azeem (Morgan Freeman) back to England and good old Sherwood Forest. Unfortunately, Robin's father (Brian Blessed) has been killed by the evil Sheriff of Nottingham (Alan Rickman) and now, Robin wants revenge. Plus, he decides to help several homeless Englishmen and other denizens from the Sherwood Forest and other villages who need a strong leader to lead them and grant them freedom. Who better than Robin himself?

In hindsight, I dreaded watching yet another update of the Robin legend. Patrick Bergin showed some dash but little chemistry in the TV movie that was to be released theatrically the same year as this film. Only Sean Connery came close as a fitting replacement to Errol Flynn. Costner shows little gleam - he is the most morose Robin Hood to ever appear on screen. And yet I must confess that I enjoyed Kevin Reynold's remake immensely. It is clever, witty, wicked, dark, and often joyous. It is by no means a great film, largely because of Costner, but it is a fun ride for the most part.

The action scenes have a thrilling intensity to them. The escape from the dungeon in the opening sequence (through a modern manhole!) has the nerve-wracking thrills of an Indiana Jones flick. There are also point-of-view shots of arrows flying through the air, discovery of gunpowder long before Marco Polo that results in fiery explosions, flaming arrows, swords that emit sparks when clanging against each other, screaming crones, black magic, a Maid Marian (Mary Elizabeth Manstrantonio) that knows how to wield a sword though she ends up as a scared damsel in distress anyway, double-crosses galore, evil priests and clerics, and so on. This Robin Hood is designed to entertain you in any way it can and it succeeds.

Though it contains a miscast Kevin Costner, the other actors do their best and bring some sense of style. Mary Elizabeth Manstrantonio is almost Shakespearean in her mannerisms and excellent English accent as the fierce, loving Maid Marian. Morgan Freeman excels as Robin's trusty aide who has a bigger sword than anyone in the movie. But it is really Alan Rickman who steals the show and is at his devilish, wicked best as the theatrical Sheriff of Nottingham ("Call off Christmas!"). Rickman goes over-the-top but hilariously so, he just can't believe one man and his merry band of men could revolt against him.

Director Kevin Reynolds opts for too many close-ups and so this Robin Hood tale does lack the grandeur of the earlier incarnations. Still, in terms of action setpieces, Reynolds has the right flair. The fiery forest attack is expertly done as is the heart-stopping climax where the Sheriff has a sword duel with Robin. There is also a nifty sequence where Robin fights a guard who turns out to be Maid Marian!

Overlong and nearly parodic (plus containing a "Star Wars" subplot that sure is grating), "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is often superb entertainment and a nice addition to the Robin Hood cinematic legends. Plus, check out the grandly majestic cameo at the end by a great, iconic actor - it is one of the best cameos in history. It is such a wonderful surprise that it had audiences cheering at the end of a screening I saw, enough to wish he had a slightly bigger role.

An erotic Dostoyevskvian Woody Allen thriller

MATCH POINT (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Woody Allen's "Match Point" is a chillingly absorbing character drama that slowly sneaks in suspense and thrills that pounce at you. Not unlike Allen's 1989 masterpiece, "Crimes and Misdemeanors," Woody is as adept at building tension and suspense as, say, Hitchcock was. In many ways, this is a more appropriately Hitchcockian homage than anything Brian De Palma has cooked up in over ten years with an added touch of Dostoyevsky to truly rattle the audience.

An Irish former tennis pro named Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is now giving tennis lessons at a very upwardly mobile social club. Chris zeroes in on one pupil, Tom (Matthew Goode), and before long, Chris has got his dreamy, fixated eyes on Tom's sister, Chloe (Emily Mortimer). Chris wastes no time as he marries Chloe and is hired to work at a financial corporation owned by Alec, Chloe and Tom's father (Brian Cox). Only trouble is Chris is not exceptional at his job. And there is Tom's girlfriend, Nola (Scarlett Johansson), a struggling American actress who has her eye on Chris, in more ways than one. These two start an adulterous affair that also involves massages and oils! Goodness gracious me but I do not recall the last time that Woody Allen ever featured erotic scenes in any of his movies.

Dostoyevsky's "Crimes and Punishment" (which our antihero avidly reads) is the key to the surprises in Woody's thriller. Another key is "Crimes and Misdemeanors" which "Match Point" often apes, in particular those cringing phone calls Chris receives during family visits and picnics. I have not described what Chris does in this film - it is a shocker when it happens - but let's say that immorality enters the picture. Scene by scene, Woody accentuates the moral decay of Chris Wilton and most of the film's unnerving tension (nicely enhanced by excerpts from Verdi's operas) will leave you in cold sweats.

"Match Point," however, is not nearly in the same company as the great "Crimes and Misdemeanors." Myers does not have the subtle sympathetic card that Martin Landau played in "Crimes." Myers' Wilton is a charmer but very insular and a tinge stoic and emotionless (by design, I am sure, but not even the barest sliver of sympathy is exuded). Also tough to withstand is Scarlett Johannson, an actress who has not impressed me much since her glorious work in "Manny and Lo," "Ghost World" and "Lost in Translation." In this role, she is hardly believable and doesn't resonate the harsh notes of the far more restrained Anjelica Huston in "Crimes."  A more dynamic actress would have been nice to complement Emily Mortimer, who is very believable as a happy woman who wants a child and all the privileges wealth has to offer.

Overall, "Match Point" works as an efficient thriller that grows on you. It is a very different Woody Allen film than anything I've seen from him in years. Kudos, warts and all.

An odd trifecta

FAMILY BUSINESS (1989)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

"Family Business" is not just a guilty pleasure of mine. It is also proof that when everything seems to go wrong in a movie (casting, story, plot), it all works in some strange way when it shouldn't. "Family Business" is one of those anomalies.

Sean Connery is a Scottish career criminal named Jessie who has just been bailed out by his grandson, a Westinghouse scholar named Adam (Matthew Broderick). Right there, something is quite wrong. Matthew Broderick's genes are not even mildly similar to Connery's. Maybe Adam is a step-grandson? Heck no, Adam's father is a wealthy wholesale meatpacker named Vito played by, wait for it, Dustin Hoffman!!!! The plot has to do with Adam's plan to steal some plasma from a scientific research lab. Easy score? Sure, all Adam needs is the codes for the several key pads to enter the building and the help of Jessie, who is all game for another heist, and the reluctant Vito who has tried to go straight for some time.

As I said, none of this technically works. The caper itself is a disappointment on a cinematic level - no "Rififi" tension here except for disabling a security guard. As bright as Adam is, he forgets crucial details during the robbery's progress. Adam's character is oddly distancing and a muddle. This bratty kid idolizes Jessie because Jessie "was fun for Christ's sake." Yep, a kid growing up in a middle-class household with a father who has tried to give his only son everything he could ever want has more fun with Jessie. Not that Connery's Jessie is not a colorful and fun character (I'd hang out with him too) but the movie endorses Jessie's (and Adam's) actions and diminishes Vito for going straight. The casting of these acting giants as one family is difficult to believe on any level. Not only that but another more pressing problem is the script's inclusion of those plasma bottles - I will not give it away but Jessie is aware of information that could lighten any sentencing after Adam is caught.

Somehow "Family Business" is an entertaining, extremely watchable film and works because of Sidney Lumet's crafty direction and subtle details (the robbery involves the stealing of chemicals and one shot shows Vito acting nervous in front of what was once Chemical Bank). The performances are all top-notch. Hoffman has many great scenes, especially one truly violent moment when he beats up a worker who has been stealing from him. Connery has his juiciest role ever and eats up the scenery. Matthew Broderick is also brilliant at playing someone way in over his head. Kudos to Victoria Jackson as a schemer who sells apartments to terminal patients and the late and highly underrated Jane Carroll as Jessie's waitress girlfriend. You still won't believe a moment of "Family Business" (and its moral center is far too muddled) but you will still have fun. 

Year of Angry Rabbits

NIGHT OF THE LEPUS (1972)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Even for grade-Z schlock, "Night of the Lepus" is so poor in all departments that aim to either thrill, shock or even remotely scare that I wonder what sort of drugs the filmmakers were on.

The movie concerns rabbits who grow to mammoth proportions - we are talking "Food of the Gods"-size. How, you might ask? Zoologist Dr. Bennett (Stuart Whitman) injects rabbits with hormones to help prevent further reproduction due to those little critters destroying a farmer's crops. Unfortunately, one of the test subjects (the rabbit, that is) escapes and the injection leads to mutated, giant rabbits who begin eating people in a nearby town. This is a job for the National Guard!

Based on a sci-fi novel called "The Year of the Angry Rabbit" (the themes and content are vastly different), "Night of the Lepus" has a concept that can't possibly work, unless the rabbits are shown to be ferocious creatures with evil red eyes. Unfortunately, the rabbits are merely filmed in slow-motion wide-angle shots amidst model town replicas! The best that can be shown are the rabbits' bloodied incisor teeth! In some cases, actors are dressed in bunny suits! I pity Janet Leigh and Stuart Whitman, as well as DeForest Kelley and Rory Calhoun, for appearing in this junk. They stand around, look concerned, and utter the most banal dialogue ever written for a monster movie. To top it all off, the ending leaves the door open for a sequel. Ugh.

There is one moment I love. The National Guard stops a screening at a drive-in and announce that the town is under attack by killer rabbits. The cars promptly leave the drive-in. I have two questions: did these townsfolk think a big prank was being played on them and, secondly, why leave so promptly? Has this happened before?