1980's cheesy flick predicted the New Avengers

TUFF TURF (1985)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Tuff Turf" is not that rough or violent for a teenage exploitation picture, and it ain't sexy enough for devoted Kim Richards fans. However, the movie is technically watchable for fans of James Spader and devotees of Robert Downey, Jr., you know, the crazy party boy actor before his stunning turn in 1987's "Less Than Zero."

Spader is the teenage protagonist, Morgan Hiller, who is pretty quick on the trigger with his dart guns. He and his family have moved from the posh digs of Connecticut to some place in San Fernando Valley. Morgan's father (Matt Clark) lost his job in the East and now drives a cab (question: what job did the father have where they all came from wealth to living in modest digs where he is now a cab driver? Some job running a company that went down under, possibly a Reagan commentary on the job crisis of the 80's but who knows). Morgan doesn't quite fit in to the new high school, which looks less uninviting than its other cinematic counterparts such as 1989's "Lean on Me" or the 1982 cult film "Class of '84." It looks like a school out of a CBS Schoolbreak special. Morgan has a bully nemesis - a mugger named Nick (Paul Mones) who destroys Morgan's bicycle! I expected a cheesy fight scene to ensue and instead, Morgan picks up his broken bike and heads home to fix it. Yep, cheesy beyond belief. Morgan has a thing for Nick's girlfriend, Frankie (Kim Richards) but no matter how many times the gang beats Morgan up or pelts him with towels holding locks and other heavy metal items, Morgan keeps coming back and invites her to his house for dinner.

"Tuff Turf" is a strange, slapdash picture because it has no real identity and no real structure. It is not quite exploitation and not quite sleazy enough, though there are technically two sex scenes and enough hardcore violence in the climax to qualify as exploitation. Most of the film parades along without any real urgency since Morgan and Nick are like the Terminator - you beat them down and they keep getting back up for more. Spader is always a compelling presence on screen (and still looks much too old to be in high school) and his scenes with his father are well-written. Robert Downey, Jr. is welcome comic relief and Paul Mones is as revolting a gang leader as I've seen since "The Warriors." Plus, you can't hate a picture that features a musical performance by Jim Carroll.

A cheesy guilty pleasure of a movie, but I am still not sure what Morgan is rebelling against. The message is take the girl from the wrong side of the Valley to a dance club and everything will be fine.

Footnote: A warehouse scene where Jim Carroll performs features a graffiti sign outside the entrance that reads: THE NEW AVENGERS. It is interesting to note that Robert Downey, Jr. and James Spader are seen exiting the warehouse right in front of the graffiti sign, considering Downey later went on to play Iron Man in three films and "The Avengers" and Spader has been cast as a villain in the "Avengers" sequel.  

Women want HALF!

EDDIE MURPHY RAW (1987)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

1987 might have been the most notorious, controversial year for Eddie Murphy. Here was a man who was not just a star, he was a superstar. He had power and commanded attention from everyone - his gargantuan laugh, wide, flashy grin and misogynistic jokes and impressions of other celebrities were the toast of the town. Murphy was riding high and everyone knew it. So his just return to comedy concerts was a welcome one. However, as in the purely misogynistic "Beverly Hills Cop II," Murphy's new concert film, "Raw," was as much about his hatred and putdown of women as it was anything relating to comedy.

Great comedians like Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce and the like can take personal subject matter and make it funny and truthful as well. Eddie Murphy took his childhood stories and his gross-out bathroom humor in "Delirious" and made it hysterical with a core of truth - everybody could relate to difficulties in maintaining bowel control or an erection. "Raw" is Murphy's attempt to understand women and their obsession with money. If a woman marries Johnny Carson, as he states, then she can divorce him and take half his money. "Half!," a phrase repeated again and again by Murphy. He does not apply this only to rich people but to himself. His quick recovery is to marry a buck naked African woman who has no idea about material or financial needs - she will love Eddie for himself, not for his money. But this scenario is not likely to last when she starts to talking to other housewives. It will not be just the money but as he states, "What have you done for me lately?"

The beginning of "Raw" has a terrific pre-title opening scene where we see a young Eddie entertaining his family by simulating urination and bowel control (look quickly for Samuel L. Jackson). Then we head right to the concert film, which starts with Eddie's acute impressions of Michael Jackson, Mr. T., James Brown and so on. This is Eddie at his best. But when he gets to the subject of women, he loses control. Murphy does not have the talent to make such a topical subject less than hateful. Any subject is ripe for comedy but Murphy is too obviously caught up in making a point when he should be making people laugh. He is angry and raw and downright nasty yet his comic tone, unlike "Delirious," is more abrasive. Whatever comic potential exists is lost with his repetitive whining that can get monotonous.

"Raw" is not a total flop, and I did laugh occasionally. I am an Eddie Murphy fan and I have seen this film twice, once in a theater and other time on video. His bit on Bill Cosby who accused Eddie of abusing the four-letter word is laugh-out-loud funny. I also like the story of his drunk uncle or the hamburgers his mother made that rarely resembled McDonalds' own brand. The funniest bit involves a club where a man threatened to sue Murphy for blinding his vision thanks to strobe lights! Those bits are enjoyable to watch again and again. But the rest of "Raw" will likely exhaust you, wondering when Murphy will give up talking about his constant dismissal of women as nothing more than sexual objects. When you are staring at the screen at Eddie Murphy for an less than an hour and not laughing then something is quite rotten in Denmark.

Citizen Kane II: Xanadu in Ruins, God, no!

CITIZEN KANE II: XANADU IN RUINS or how I wish they would leave IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE alone

By Jerry Saravia

Not to worry, there are no plans for a "Citizen Kane II." There are plans for a sequel to "It's a Wonderful Life." Yes, the classic 1946 weeper with James Stewart and Donna Reed, the cinematic staple of every Christmas season (that and Bob Clark's "A Christmas Story"). According to Variety, "the proposed $30 million sequel still lacks a director, yet the producers have lined up 73-year old Karolyn Grimes, the actress who played Zuzu Bailey in the original, to reprise her role — though now she’ll play the angel who has to guide George’s grandson through a similar crisis. The twist: the new George Bailey is unlikeable and Aunt Zuzu shows him how much better the world would be if he’d never been born. The filmmakers are also in discussions with long-retired septuagenarian actors Jimmy Hawkins and Carol Coombs to revisit their Bailey-child characters as well. None of the three actors have been in a major film in decades."

This is not the first time that a continuation or remake of the perennial classic has been considered. Marlo Thomas appeared as a gender-reversal of Jimmy Stewart's George in a 1977 made-for-TV remake called "It Happened One Christmas." The film retained the 1940's setting, good old Bedford Falls, and featured Emmy-nominated Cloris Leachman in another gender-reversal role of the angel Clarence known as Clara Oddbody. Despite high ratings, few remember the film since it got shuffled aside in favor of the endless TV airings of the original. There was also 1990's TV-movie "Clarence" starring Robert Carradine as a more youthful Clarence helping another human, but who needs to be reminded.  

But is a sequel necessary? Definitely not. Sequels rarely work or eclipse their original counterparts so a sequel or continuation of the George Bailey saga feels unseemly and a tad sacrilegious. Perhaps the makers will have their hearts in the right place but the central Frank Capra theme of an alternate reality where the protagonist does not exist has been done to death. Everything from even a subplot of "Last Temptation to Christ" to "Back to the Future Part II" to the insufferably cute "Mr. Destiny" with Jim Belushi are just a few examples of how important the idea of one's destiny in our universe matters. I would have bought a sequel back in the late 40's or early 50's with Stewart and Reed filling in for their iconic roles, but I do not see the sense in revisiting something that was as much a staple of that era as it was universal in its themes of commitment and family values. The original film had a complete beginning, middle and end - it was airtight in its complex narrative of George Bailey's life as a banker who cared about his small town more so than himself (what a distant past that was compared to now). Was the colder, darker reality that the angel proposed to Bailey suppressed truth or pure fiction? Would Mr. Potter ever have a change of heart towards George and the citizens of Bedford Falls? Do you see now why we do not need a new chapter? Heaven forbid.

Ack, ack, ack this!

MARS ATTACKS! (1996)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally viewed in late '96)

The absolute worst is expected when a celebrated Hollywood director is given the reins to a multi-million dollar project after having helmed a small-scale cult film like "Ed Wood." I hate discussing what the budget of the film is but "Mars Attacks!" cost $80 million to make, and was expected to gross over $120 million (which it didn't) - in other words, it should have been a financial blockbuster. Truth is that when you hand the reins to a dark, twisted genius like Tim Burton, anything goes. "Mars Attacks" did not fare well at the box-office and it is just as well - it is a hilarious, witty, nihilistic satire of those old Martian invasion movies from the 40's and 50's. This is not "Independence Day." Its tongue is firmly placed in its cheek.

"Mars Attacks!" begins when a flaming herd of cattle makes its way into a typical all-American small-town - a flying saucer has just had an accidental run-in, but are they here for peace? When the Martians land in the middle of the Nevada desert to be greeted by The President of the U.S. (Jack Nicholson) and other gleeful citizens, the aliens begin blasting everything in sight. When the President decides to greet them at the White House sensing that this was all a misunderstanding, the Martian ambassador proclaims, "We come in peace." Unsurprisingly, the ambassador and his cohorts zap everyone with laser guns and burn all Congress officials into toast.

"Mars Attacks!" doesn't just end there. Burton brings on his magic bag of tricks by mocking all those alien-invasion disaster movies and adding his own bizarre sense of humor. Based on the gory Topps "Mars Attacks!" cards that were banned in the 1950's, the movie is an assemblage of in-jokes, cheeky dialogue, offbeat gags, dozens of special-effects, and sheer comic mayhem and destruction. Nearly the whole cast is demolished but it filled me with cartoonish delight to see how they are demolished. Watch Michael J. Fox melt while trying to reach for Sarah Jessica Parker's hand! See the incredible sight of a dog's head being grafted on Parker's body! The movie reads like an outrageously zany comic-book with amazing sights, indeed.

The cast is first-rate for this material. We have wicked Jack Nicholson as not only the straight arrow leader of the U.S. but also as a sleazy, leering Vegas businessman; Glenn Close as the nervous First Lady; Annette Bening as a New Age freak obsessed with meeting the Martians; Danny DeVito as an unctuous lawyer who tries to reason with them; Jim Brown as a former boxer who takes them on; Sarah Jessica Parker and Michael J. Fox as unctuous media reporters; Lisa Marie as the memorably slinky alien in disguise who woos Martin Short; and the hilarious (alien-like) Sylvia Sydney as the elderly grandmother of the trailer park family. There are dozens of other cameos, but the aforementioned actors are the most facetious.

What's most outrageous in Burton's fantasy are the Martians themselves - they are green, skeletal aliens with large brains and bulging eyeballs protected by a shield so they can breathe on Earth. They zap everyone and everything in sight, laughing like gremlins at the expense of human lives. All they have to say is "Ack, ack, ack, ack, ack."

"Mars Attacks!" doesn't start off well. For one, the Martians grow tiresome after awhile - all that "Ack, Ack" business is not very imaginative or funny. But then, the movie incredibly gains a fast-paced, inventive comic spirit and gets funnier by the minute. There are also some great lines, such as Lukas Haas's response to the Martian's interpretation of earth: "Hey. He made the international sign of the donut." I also like the President's heartwarming "Can't we all get along" speech to the Martians. And seeing Tom Jones playing himself in Vegas and confronting the aliens causes one to smile despite the ridiculous scenario.

"Mars Attacks!" is not Tim Burton's best film but it is more savagely funny and subversive than "Beetlejuice" or "Batman." Burton has fun with the sci-fi genre and cleverly attacks it at the same time. This is definitely no ordinary studio blockbuster film.

Ring around the toilet bowl

PANE E TULIPANI aka BREAD AND TULIPS (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Anyone who thinks that Hollywood is the only industry that makes formulaic romantic comedies is sadly mistaken. Silvio Soldini's "Bread and Tulips" is an Italian romantic comedy with all the necessary ingredients to make it a success. The difference is in the execution.

"Bread and Tulips" stars Licia Maglietta as Rosalba, the dutiful housewife who boards a tourist bus with her son and husband back from vacation. At a rest stop, Rosalba loses her engagement ring in a toilet bowl. While trying to retrieve it, the bus leaves without her. What is Rosalba to do now? She decides to go to Venice by hitchhiking there, and enjoying her own vacation for once. This leaves her husband mad who blames her for not being in the bus. Did he ever stop to think that maybe he had taken her for granted and should have checked to be sure she was in the bus before leaving?

Nevertheless, Rosalba stays in beautiful Venice for a day until she misses the train that would take her home. She goes to a cheap hotel, eats a cold dish at the local restaurant, and decides to get a job working for a florist! Rosalba suddenly feels liberated but where will she stay since the hotel has just closed down? Back at the restaurant, a waiter named Fernando (Bruno Ganz) lets her stay in his flat out of sympathy. Rosalba has now neglected her family in favor of her own interests and desires. She becomes acquainted with the reticent Fernando, and forms a friendship with a masseuse next door named Grazia (Marina Massironi). But what of her familial obligations? It seems that her husband has hired a plumber, Constantino (Giuseppe Battiston), to do some private investigating on his wife in Venice. He needs her for her cleaning and cooking and little else since he satisfies himself with a mistress.

"Bread and Tulips" is fairly predictable since you can sense how these characters will mingle and connect. I only wish that writers Soldini and Doriana Leondeff had devised more unexpected turns and twists, especially with the overweight Constantino who fancies himself a real detective though he is only an amateur. I also wished that more was said about Fernando, and his curious habit of hanging a noose in his bedroom. He is obviously suicidal but it is hardly mentioned again when he meets Rosalba the first time. I also would have liked to hear Rosalba mention just once how she felt about her past life and her newer, happier one. The film seems to aim for that speech but it never arrives.

And yet, this is a fairly enjoyable, delicious film that holds back and never goes for any cheap gags. It simmers but never boils. Hollywood may remake it and cast Gwyneth Paltrow as the masseuse, Conchata Ferrell as Rosalba and Gene Hackman as Fernando, but I should hope not. If you like "Chocolat" or the simple pleasures of comedies that deem to be uncomplicated and optimistic, then "Bread and Tulips" is the film for you.

Marion Crane in living, breathing COLOR!

PSYCHO (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

If anyone attempted to do a remake to the 1960 classic "Psycho," it should have been the Master of Suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock. He did that with "The Man Who Knew Too Much." Hitch isn't around anymore and he's probably rolling in his grave as director Gus Van Sant ("Drugstore Cowboy") attempts to step into the limelight. This "Psycho" remake is a complete bastardization, a dull, callous, near parodic film of little or no consequence.

Granted, I am aware that they have used Joseph Stefano's original, excellent screenplay (almost word for word), and Van Sant has adopted the same angles and camera shots through most of the film. But this movie is a recreation, in the literal sense, not a remake. It replicates the original, but with none of the grace, stamina or conviction that the actors or the director brought to the original. Anne Heche comes off best as Marion Crane, but we'll get back to her in a minute.

Anthony Perkins will always be Norman Bates, just as Harrison Ford will always be Indiana Jones. Therefore, it is a shame to see another actor step in his shoes. The shameful overacting by Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates sheds no doubts in my mind. He has a self-deprecating type of laugh but he brings none of the wit, charm, or nervous tension associated with the stuttering, sexually ambiguous Perkins. He's like a big baby who wouldn't harm a fly, nor scare one either. The marvelous cast on hand is a complete waste of time and talent. There's Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, originally played by John Gavin, a hardware store owner who looks like he's poised to kill. Here's an actor who's too seedy and animalistic to be normal, playing a boyfriend for the second time in a Hitch remake, the first being the suspenseless "A Perfect Murder." Julianne Moore is the biggest disappointment as the one-note character, Lila Crane. I never imagined Moore to be faceless, unsympathetic, and uninteresting yet she manages all the same. Bring back Vera Miles! Worst of all is William H. Macy as the flippant detective Arbogast dressed in a blazing dark blue suit and wearing a ridiculous-looking fedora - how could anyone take this guy seriously, including Norman? Macy's line readings are so flat and antiseptic that I realized why the performers were so listless - they brought no energy or conviction to their roles. They rattle through their line readings quickly with no degree of nuance or diction. Ditto Robert Forster as the psychiatrist in a final scene that was unnecessary in the original, though meant as a joke perhaps.

No one can blame the script, but you sure can blame Van Sant for not recreating the feeling or the mood. There's no tension, no surprise. By the time the marvelously sensual Anne Heche exits, the rest of the film flounders searching for an identity. There is none. Philip Baker Hall is the only actor who brings a sense of authority as Sheriff Chambers. Anne Heche brings class, elegance and a wink of humor to Marion before she's offed.

The original "Psycho" is one of the few great horror classics of all time. I've seen and studied it at least thirty to forty times. I have committed most of the camera shots and dialogue to memory. I can sense Van Sant's giddiness in stepping in the Hitch's shoes, and seeing the film through his eyes. I wish Van Sant would use that giddiness to make an original creation of his own. I just don't see the justification in making a colorized recreation of a film that was pitch-perfect.

Check out of this Bates Motel room

PSYCHO III (1986)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Norman Bates is one of the most indelible portraits of psychotic killers in cinema. Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins made Norman a household name. Sadly, in 1986, Anthony Perkins chose to revisit the Norman character in a slasher flick in the guise of a Hitchcockian thriller. The Bates House and Motel are still there but it may as well be Crystal Lake.

Perkins reprises Norman Bates as far more kooky and anxious than normal. He still runs the motel that nobody ever stays in, and good old mother is still seated in a chair seen through the bedroom window. Something wicked this way comes in the form of an ex-nun, Maureen (Diana Scarwid), who resembles Janet Leigh from the original "Psycho," and a drifter and musician named Duane (Jeff Fahey) who is probably just as kooky as Norman. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a trio of nutcases staying at the Bates Motel who don't deliver a smidgeon of humanity or sympathy from us.

For gore fans, there is more than expected. A woman is killed while sitting in a toilet, another one while making a call in a phone booth, and there are the requisite impalements, great falls from great heights, and so on. This movie is not as gory as most slasher flicks from the same period but it is nasty and gorier than "Psycho II."

Except for one scene featuring Hugh Gillin as the Sheriff who licks a bloody ice cube, "Psycho III" merely recycles what worked so well before minus the suspense, the atmosphere, the thrills or the black humor. There are no new insights into poor old Norman - he is merely as insane as he was before (though he tries to woo Maureen with great difficulty). The late Perkins is a shadow of his former self and "Psycho III" (also directed by Perkins) is a pale echo of the Hitchcock classic.