Romance by-the-numbers

NEXT STOP WONDERLAND (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Originally reviewed in 1999)

When I saw the preview for "Next Stop Wonderland," I was excited. I was expecting a comedy about the personals, and how difficult it is for a single woman to date in the 90's. Well, the movie skimps on that completely for a mostly stale romantic comedy that offers nothing new - just the same old story about a girl meets boy with some "Sleepless in Seattle" thrown into the mix. 

Hope Davis stars as Erin Castleton, a lonely, miserable 29-year-old nurse living in Boston. In a wry opening sequence, her left-wing boyfriend (the phenomenal Philip Seymour Hoffman) walks out on her again and leaves a videotape of the eight or more reasons why he has dumped her. Erin is understandably upset and swears she will no longer have romantic attachments. The idea is short-lived when her visiting mother places a personals ad for her, writing that her daughter is "carefree and has a zest for life." No aspersions directed to Ms. Davis (whom I am sure is a lovely, spirited woman in real life) but her character is anything but carefree and zesty. Erin looks positively glum and charmless at best. Still, she dates a variety of men she meets on the personals (after receiving more than 60 messages) and is suitably unimpressed by most of them - especially when they misattribute a quote about "consistency" to other writers except the originator, Emerson.

The film starts off so damn well that I was expecting a fresh variation on the dead-on-water romantic comedy genre (a genre that desperately needs an infusion of originality). Sadly, writer-director Brad Anderson relegates the material to formulaic conventions and superficialities. There is a lot of business about a plumber named Alan (Alan Gelfant) who wants to be a marine biologist. He also owes some money to a loan shark, and this whole subplot is disinteresting at best and takes up too much time. There are also some needless scenes involving Erin and a Brazilian charmer who wants her to come with him to Sao Paulo (nothing romantic about a polluted city - I know, I lived there). The best scenes are the cross-cutting between Erin's different dates, especially three of them who are betting to see who will spend the night with her first. But these scenes last no more than twenty minutes time of a ninety-six minute running time. We know there is the potential meeting between Alan and Erin (no bets on whether or not they will meet) but it keeps getting sidetracked and prevented, just like in "Sleepless in Seattle." It is a cute idea but it is nothing we have not seen before countless times.

"Next Stop Wonderland" might serve a need for couples since it is unassuming, cutesy and occasionally romantic. But there is a better movie struggling to get out and it just never materializes. I just imagined a better movie benefitting from more screen time with Philip Seymour Hoffman as the ex who can't make up his mind, and the engaging material about the personals. Anything but this oft-travelled stop.

The Dark Knight returns

BATMAN BEGINS (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Originally reviewed in 2005)

The Bat signal shines brightly in the night skies of Gotham City again. Oh, no, you might say? Well, fear not. Director Joel Schumacher, who ruined the Batman franchise with his gaudy and glam Batman in "Batman and Robin," is absent. No Robin or Batgirl are on display. No George Clooney or Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne or his alter-ego. No, what we have here is the freakiest, keenest and most entertaining Batman film yet. This Batman doesn't just fly, he soars above all comic-book superheroes we have seen in the cinema screens lately.

Enter Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), shown in the opening scenes as a dour sourpuss imprisoned in some island. He unwillingly endures a training session with Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a master swordsman and spiritual mentor who is in cahoots with the "League of Shadows." Bruce doesn't realize how dangerous and terroristic this league is until he is asked to decapitate a man as part of his rite of passage. Needless to say, Bruce declines and fights his way out of it.

We segue to the billionaire playboy we all know from previous incarnations - the one whose parents' lives were taken by a criminal when he was a tot. Bruce's devotion is to fight crime in Gotham, which is at an alarmingly high rate thanks to a volatile crime lord, Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson). There is also some creepy psychiatrist, known as the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), who wears a paper bag on his head and speaks in a deep bass tone before emitting some hallucinogenic vapor that keeps his patients institutionalized. Bruce Wayne knows he can't fight crime with his tuxedo and good looks so he opts for a costume and some weaponry. The man to provide the arsenal and a costume fitting is Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor who works on the ground level of Wayne Enterprises. Fox provides Wayne with some bulletproof armored car that moves with the speed of, well, a bat. There is also an armored Bat suit complete with all kinds of recognizable gizmos, belts and well, you know the rest. Now Batman can confront the criminals of society and prevent Scarecrow's psychedelic drug from making everyone into a mental patient, as well as stop some superweapon from contaminating the water supply of Gotham. And the non-corrupt Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) is willing to help fight crime, even with the assistance of some guy in a bat suit.

But let's not stop there. Wayne has to confront his inner demons, mostly the death of his parents and the haunting memory of being attacked by bats in an underground cave. There's also the assistant D.A., Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), who pines for Wayne's love yet would like him to mature beyond his wealth interests. And I shouldn't forget Wayne's butler, Alfred (Michael Caine), who looks after the lad as a concerned parent would.

Yes, folks, this is the Batman film I've been waiting for, and I'd assume fans have been waiting for as well. Forget Tim Burton's own Bat incarnations - as good as the first one was and as sickly as the second one, they don't come close to the psychological complexity on hand here. For once, Bruce Wayne and Batman are shown as separate sides of the same coin - we understand the duality perfectly and how they complement each other. The filmmakers have found the perfect actor to play the role - Christian Bale makes for a fauxly snobbish Bruce Wayne and a stirringly frightening Batman (face it, there's always been something malevolently creepy about a man dressed as a bat). As Bruce correctly pinpoints about his alter-ego, "anyone who dresses as a bat clearly has issues."

"Batman Begins" is directed by Christopher Nolan (who also co-wrote with David Goyer) with breathtaking sonic rhythms and acute sensibility. The few action scenes on display rivet in ways few action movies do because, listen closely Mr. Michael Bay, they deal with people whom we care about. CARE, CARE, CARE, thanks to good screenwriting!!! Yes, comic-book movies can make us care, including Ang Lee's underrated "Hulk" and the super-duper "Spider-Man" movies. Nolan invests enough time and patience for the first hour of the film to make us see Bruce Wayne's roots before segueing to the Caped Crusader antics. And Nolan has proven himself to be a master director after the brilliant masterpiece "Memento" and the moral complexity of "Insomnia." I can't imagine another director putting such a personal stamp on a blockbuster film and still make it energetic and exciting.

Besides uncovering Bruce's own psychosis, the film also juggles a few subplots around, a dozen well-developed characters, action sequences to spare, a dank Gotham City, and all in the time frame of 2 and 1/2 hours. Whoever thought that the butler Alfred would come across as something more than a dutiful servant. Whoever thought that the villains would be fearsome in their own way (unlike Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze from Schumacher's school). Whoever thought that Batman and Bruce Wayne would get more focus than usual. Stop reading this review! Go see "Batman Begins," the best superhero film ever and one of the finest entertainments in many years. I can now say that the Caped Crusader has finally come home.

Think about the Future!

BATMAN (1989)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The Caped Crusader has always been a mystery to me. What kind of person dresses up as a bat and roams the city streets of Gotham City at night? That question is an actual line of dialogue in Tim Burton's film, "Batman," but it is never answered. Batman was more fully realized in comic-book form than in any film or TV series version (until Christopher Nolan's epic vision in 2005) so, it is unfortunate that Burton's "Batman" sees him only as a one-dimensional freak with a two-dimensional wealthy playboy as the character whom we identify with, ever so slightly.

"Batman" is a strange entertainment in that it has sweep and a sonic boom to the visuals and the music (aside from the stirring orchestral score by Danny Elfman, there are songs by Prince) but little inner life and nothing ever seems at stake. Michael Keaton is Bruce Wayne, the wealthy playboy who lives at Wayne Manor which also houses an enormous Batcave. He has his lifelong servant and butler, Alfred (Michael Gough), whom he sees as his only family (Wayne's parents were killed by thugs). Beyond that, there is not much more to take away from Bruce Wayne except he can be deep in thought, and apparently loves the Batman-loving and global photojournalist, Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger, in one of her surest roles performing with wit, romance and a sense of humor). Can Bruce Wayne ever admit to Vicki that he is a giant flying rat? Added to the mix is a Mayor Koch lookalike; smooth though again underwritten Harvey Dent character (Billy Dee Williams); the comic schtick of Robert Wuhl as an ambitious reporter, and the fabulous Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon who is barely there there.

Jack Nicholson is the maniacal Joker, formerly maniacal Jack Napier, and he gives the role what it needs - a real shot of adrenaline that allows the charismatic actor to dance on screen for two hours. Except Nicholson is so damn good in the part (though whether he eclipses Cesar Romero's own interpretation from the Adam West TV show is one for the diehard Batman fans to digest and dissect) that he steals the movie from the inert Bruce Wayne/Batman complex. Old Jack is the star of the show, especially when mimicking a mime, joking with a fried corpse, performing in truly black-humored commercials, or destroying cultural works of art. Jack Nicholson becomes the movie - he owns it - and that is a high price to pay when you undernourish Batman's pain from having witnessed a significant tragedy in his own life. This aspect of identifying with the villains lead to the sequels that gave us less and less of our Caped Crusader.

"Batman" swooshes up and down on the screen, taking us on roller-coasters that pan Gotham City's architectural wonders and numerous buildings that we zoom in and out of. Tim Burton makes the city a grand character, thanks to the astounding production design by Anton Furst, and makes the Batmobile a threatening armadillo machine that goes beyond the TV series' own tame though no less iconic vehicle. The film looks spectacular in every respect and it is eye-filling. And when the rescue of Vicki Vale occurs, not to mention the various Batwing flying through the city moments, it is momentous and carries an electrifying, rousing charge of excitement. "Batman" is certainly entertaining but overall the film lacks urgency - Joker wants to poison everyone but to what end? Clearly he is the life of the party and his Joker feels extraneous when Michael Keaton is all gloom and doom in small doses. The "smile and smile and be a villain" is formidable, while the hero is stuck in a closet of his own mind.

WELCOME to ARCADIA!!!

HOW I GOT INTO COLLEGE (1989)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Some movies catch you for nostalgic reasons. When "How I Got Into College" was released in 1989, it reminded me of the whole dilemma of good SAT scores and choosing-the-right-college scenarios I had been through the year prior. Ostensibly a comedy, Savage Steve Holland nails all the details right regarding the college application process but comes up somewhat short of satirizing enough of the craziness. From the man who brought us "Better Off Dead" and "One Crazy Summer," "How I Got Into College" is fairly mild and laid back.

A satire can either be laid back or high-pitched yet, regardless of the subject matter, it has to be outrageous, somewhat larger-than-life and full of biting, sharp humor. There is one scene that truly embellishes the onslaught of college applications that can drive you up the wall. It involves college fair day at the high school and Curtis Armstrong (a helluva presence in the annals of comedy, starting with "Revenge of the Nerds") hollers the privileges of attending Arcadia College, a Bible school. Armstrong is spirited and practically steals the movie from everyone. More often than not we are saddled with Corey Parker as Marlon, an underachiever who desperately wants to attend Ramsey College because perky overachiever, Jessica (Lara Flynn Boyle), plans to go there as well - you see, Marlon has a crush on her. Only problem is Corey Parker, who is animated enough, is no John Cusack - he just carries a goofy grin and we can't work up much enthusiasm for his exploits. Lara Flynn Boyle is stirring on screen when she isn't having a nervous breakdown - she is at her best when telling an urban legend to her classmates about a girl's college interview that resulted in suicide.

There are many bright moments in "How I Got Into College" and many bright, fresh actors who bring plenty of vigor to their roles. Tichina Arnold is an African-American student from Detroit who is just as aspiring as any of the rich, elitist students of the Ivy League variety. There is also the snappy duo of Phil Hartman and Nora Dunn as con artists masquerading as SAT teachers. I also liked Finn Carter as a Ramsey recruiter who truly believes, along with her boyfriend (Anthony Edwards), that the college should broaden their horizons in picking college students. Do not go for popcorn or you will miss Richard Jenkins and Diane Franklin as Marlon's parents who laugh at the prospect of this kid even applying for Ramsey (come to think of it, Diane should have played Lara Flynn Boyle's role). Duane Davis is fun to watch as an aspiring college football player who can't speak for himself - his girlfriend and his coach do all the talking.

"How I Got Into College" is a sweet, safe often upbeat comedy. It is not just not all I expect from the likes of Savage Steve Holland who could have brought more pungent wit to the proceedings - the satiric potential doesn't have enough bite. He passes this test, but not with flying colors.

Jack is Lame, Ron Burgundy is not

ANCHORMAN 2: THE LEGEND CONTINUES (2013)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The original "Anchorman" was nothing more than a frenzied Warner Brothers cartoon that poked fun at late-night news with a dimmer-than-thou Ron Burgundy who was not exactly adept at his profession. "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" continues along the same streak and, though not as cartoonishly funny as the original, it made me smile from beginning to end despite the occasional lull.

Things get off on the wrong foot for Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) right from the start. New York's top news anchor, Mack (expertly played by Harrison Ford), is retiring and decides to fire Ron ("You are the worst anchor of all time") and give Ron's wife and co-anchor, Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), his job! Ron is furious, leaves his family and takes a job at Sea World in San Diego (his home turf) where he drunkenly introduces dolphins to an audience. Ron also gets fired from Sea World and is miraculously asked to anchor a 24-hour news channel called GNN (the parallels with CNN and today's round-the-clock news are not subtle) where he will be announcing the news...between 2 and 5 am. Ron can't do this alone and brings back his old buddies including mentally challenged Brick (Steve Carrell), former meteorologist, who attends his own funeral; the energetic former sports announcer Champ Kind (David Koechner) who owns his own KFC-type restaurant that serves fried bats not chicken; and the kind photographer Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd) who specializes in taking cute kitten photos - he was once the field reporter.

Added to the mix of loony characters are newcomers such as Kristen Wiig as GNN's receptionist who stares at ringing phones, and Meagan Good as Linda, the temperamental overseer of GNN who is strangely attracted to Ron. A dinner scene sets the bar for Ron Burgundy's inability to communicate with Linda's family like a normal person - it is a tremendously funny and cringeworthy scene like most of "Anchorman 2." Also worth noting is a far more arrogant anchorman than Ron ever could be, Jack Lime (James Marsden) who makes a ratings bet with Ron - if Jack loses, he has to change his name to Jack Lame. Any other actor aside from Ferrell suggesting such a change would have been, well, lame. Ferrell just makes it gold.

"Anchorman 2" is not the laugh riot of the original, which was hardly one of the best comedies ever made but definitely a cut above most in recent years. An extended sequence where Ron Burgundy is blind after an accident hardly elicited as many laughs as I would hope. At nearly two hours, half hour longer than the original, the movie doesn't maintain the same degree of consistency and much more comic gold could've been mined with the talents of Marsden and Christina Applegate. But for the occasional gag that is, well, lame, there are many others that made me laugh out loud and smile. The final battle between all the networks in the middle of a park (there are some unexpected cameos) strikes the right balance between buffoonish and the equally absurd - how often do you see Harrison Ford change into a werewolf? Ferrell, his buddies and director Adam McKay have continued to make me smile with their cartoonish, anarchic view of the news world. I am all for a third go-round.

The Scorpio jacket is cool

DRIVE (2011)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Neo noir has little to no bearing on the black-and-white film noir of post-WW II. Even when films got cooler and maintained a cooler distance as well, such as Lee Marvin in "Point Blank," noir carried that edge of existentialism - a world where there were no heroes and morality was skewed. Neo noir has a cool distance but little of the skewed morality. It is barely existential anymore - more of an ironic distance than even Tarantino's pop culture noir tableaux. "Drive" has cool written all over it and initially shares some of the existential trappings that makes noir what it is. Then it goes off the deep end into shallow, cliched waters that pretty much demolish what precedes it.

Ryan Gosling is the unnamed Driver of the film, a Hollywood stunt car driver and garage mechanic who also lends his talents to being the top getaway driver for criminal activities. In the astoundingly tense and electrifying opening sequence, he helps two robbers escape from the police and a searching helicopter and maneuvers his Chevy vehicle with the ease of an elusive professional. The Driver doesn't have much else going on in his isolated existence, but he does take a liking to a neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan) who has a son and a husband in prison. The Driver helps her when she has car trouble and, for a while, writer-director  Nicolas Winding Refn rivets our attention with strikingly silent poses and body language that speaks volumes. The suspense builds when Irene's husband is out of prison and asks the Driver to help in a pawn shop robbery. Naturally, things go haywire and out-of-control.

"Drive" starts off as such an absorbing tone poem, even more breathtaking than a Michael Mann flick, that I was completely swept away by Gosling and Mulligan. Then we get to some cliched mob business involving Albert Brooks in an atypical and largely miscast role as a mob boss and Ron Perlman with glaringly big white teeth as a henchman, and I suddenly felt I was in some other movie. All manner of restraint and "coolness" erodes in favor of brutal, graphically violent setpieces that pretty much clam up the narrative. Gosling plays a loner, a nobody, but all that remains is a cipher, an automaton. When he starts walking around the last third of the film with a very cool Scorpion jacket full of blood stains, I lost patience. When the Driver stomps on one guy's head repeatedly (bordering on Rob Zombie's hideous violence from his "Halloween" remake) and Irene stands there dumbfounded, I was angry. I am no prude when it comes to violence (Scorsese, Tarantino on occasion, Mann and many others know how to make violence sting and linger without overstating) but this movie goes overboard and is too nasty to resonate with the firm, compelling, restrained tone that sets up the film. Uneven doesn't come close to describing it.

There are many things to admire in "Drive." A couple of the car chase sequences are splendidly made and very kinetic - they astonish and bring back the element of surprise that has dissipated from years of mediocre car-chase flicks. The mood and atmosphere of the film is strikingly photographed, especially the scenes of the city at night. Other pluses include Carey Mulligan as a very delicate wallflower who is hypnotic to watch, Bryan Cranston as a garage mechanic who is in way over his head with the mob boss, and Oscar Issac as Irene's husband who shares a glimmer of wanting to change his life. But the movie and Ryan Gosling (who can do much more than make a zombie stare) are a vaccum blowing us postmodernist shards of better movies (including a lost classic from the 1970's "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" which has stronger personalities in it than anything in this movie) minus any real moral complexity. "Drive" starts off as a crisply flavored Vodka Martini and ends up as one too many spilled Bloody Marys.

Monster on the loose in Antarctica

THE THING (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It always amazes me how times change. Back in 1982, John Carpenter's "The Thing" was a box-office failure. The critics excoriated the filmmaker for making a vomit-inducing picture with too many icky special-effects and too little character development, not to mention the gall of remaking a classic 1951 movie. The truth is that Carpenter went back to the original source, "Who Goes There?" a novella by John W. Campbell, and made a captivating, if slightly less invested in its human characters, monster movie that thrives on suspense and not relentless gore.

Naturally, when I think back to "The Thing," I recall the head with spider legs, the alien cadavers composed of other bodies, the freezing cold temperatures of the Antarctic, the Dog-Thing that drives other dogs nuts, etc. The one image that stands out, that narrowly focuses on the dread and bleak tone that drives Carpenter's film, is the opening sequence. It shows a dog running in the snow as it evades a Norwegian helicopter in the horizon. Why is the helicopter chasing the dog? We don't know but we know things are rotten in the deep freeze of this winterland when the Norwegian steps out of the helicopter and threatens to kill the dog. Madness ensues as our American motley crew of scientists and soldiers kill the pilot and another Norwegian accidentally blows himself up with a grenade. The terror has begun but our crew has no idea what they got in store.

My only disappointment with "The Thing" is that the characters are merely archetypal. There are exceptions - Kurt Russell's MacReady is one we can semi-root for who knows that this thing will not easily be contained. Keith David also stands out as another soldier, Childs, who is ready for a fight especially with his trusty flamethrower. Also worth a mention is Wilford Brimley (in possibly the strangest role of his career) as a biologist who goes insane (and who wouldn't when there is a deadly alien and an endless blizzard in the middle of it all?). Brimley's character is eventually held in a separate housing unit to shield him from causing more harm to others. There is also the warm-hearted and canine-loving Clark (Richard Masur) who is in charge of the kennel where things get out of control. The movie becomes a whodunit, as clearly evidenced from the novella's "Ten Little Indians" scenario, and it is a guessing game as to who is more dangerous than the other and who is human, and who isn't. Most of these militant, rough-edged, macho characters are tough to like and it is difficult to root for most of them. Even MacReady kills one person without hesitation - maybe the point is that the solitary environment can induce cabin fever and make killers out of all us. I buy that but I am not sure it makes any difference to me who dies and who lives, which is probably why the ending is left open-ended with two surviving characters.

I would not prefer this remake over the stunning original but both movies are not exactly peas in the same pod. The Howard Hawks-produced and Christian Nyby-directed The Thing focused on a patriotic crew trying to kill a menace (though I hardly think of it is a Red Menace as some viewers allege) - the menace in the shape of a Frankenstein Monster-type. John Carpenter's version goes back to the original source, having a creature that mimics its crew and eventually forms a monstrous, bloody and oozing-various-liquids-out-of-its-pores "thing" that would not have appeared in any 1950's cinematic interpretation. The atmosphere is startlingly realized by cinematographer Dean Cundey, the music by Ennio Morricone grows on you, and the special-effects are amazing and chilling to witness. But Carpenter's "Thing" has very little humanity overall, despite a great deal of suspense, and we just want to see more of the distorted alien than the human crew members who elicit precious little sympathy. A fascinating, icky, watchable and repulsive film to watch but I can't say I hated it or loved it. - it is middle-of-the-road John Carpenter that far exceeds "The Fog" but is not on the same level as "Halloween" or "Escape From New York."