Another 2 hours with a parched Im-Ho-Tep

THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2001)

I have been vilified by people on the Internet and offline for my intense dislike of movies like the remake of "House on Haunted Hill" and the remake of "The Mummy," not to mention "The Matrix." None of these movies, in my mind, offered much in the way of story or plot or ideas, though "The Matrix" was far more ambitious than the other two. The problem is also the depths to which ILM computer designers will focus on the latest in state-of-the-art special effects sans story or plot or character definition. Casting decent actors like Rachel Weisz and Brendan Fraser in an overproduced mess like "The Mummy Returns" shows me that Hollywood has gone to sleep and raked in the big bucks. And the audiences continue to attend.

"The Mummy Returns" brings back Brendan Fraser as Rick, the resourceful Egyptologist who is now married to Evelyn (Rachel Weisz), the librarian from the first film. They also have a curious 8-year-old son (Freddie Boath), who is adept at using a slingshot. Also along for the ride is the dryly British brother-in-law Jonathan (John Hannah) who knows how to milk the appropriate quip when necessary. The story-hanging-on-a-thread involves some evil Egyptologists who want to bring back the dreaded Im-Ho-Tep (Arnold Vosoloo) to fight the dreaded Scorpion King (WWF star The Rock) at some sort of ancient pyramid. If I understood correctly (and I imagine I did not), the destruction of the Scorpion King is necessary for Im-Ho-Tep to rule the world and begin the second Armageddon, or something like that. By the end of the film, it turns out that the Scorpion King is also evil, but I could be wrong.

Stories like this typically make little sense but somehow they were cohesive in the Indiana Jones series. In fact, it is no surprise that like its predecessor, "The Mummy Returns" is a hodgepodge of horror cliches and the Indiana Jones flicks. Any semblance here of Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee from the old "Mummy" films is in-name only. Neither Vosoloo nor the Rock elicit much personality or villainy (I also noticed Vosoloo is photographed only from the chest up. This does not allow for much in the way of body language). It doesn't help that Rick's one line about seeing Im-Ho-Tep's resurrection results in the line, "Two years ago, this would have surprised me."

Fraser and Weisz seem to going through the motions (and have zilch in terms of chemistry). Only the 8-year-old son (nicely played by Freddie Boath) and the dry humor of John Hannah show some inkling of human beings existing in the world of this movie. Hannah has a classic line when he reacts to a sage's cliched line of "It is written..." by asking, "Where is it written?" The movie needed more of Hannah, or maybe he should have replaced the stoic Fraser.

"The Mummy Returns" is a template for special-effects galore but it is also a frighteningly inhuman movie where the main characters merely react to the roaring mummies and shoot them until they evaporate into thin air. The movie is a recap of the original but with even less emphasis on anyone who is not a dog-creature. By the end, we feel sympathy for one character, Im-Ho-Tep, as his reincarnated love refuses to save him. It is leftover evidence from the 90's when the audience feels more pity for the villains than they do for the heroes.

Parched Im-Ho-Tep will give you a headache

THE MUMMY (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 1999)

The trouble with remakes is that unless you haven't seen their forefathers, you'll think you are not witnessing cinematic artistry at its lowest. I cannot advise someone retouching a classic, understated horror classic like "The Mummy" (1932) which starred the incomparable Boris Karloff, or one of its best remakes with Christopher Lee in 1959. This overheated 90's version of the Mummy attempts to throw everything into the mix including the kitchen sink. As a result, it sacrifices its original storyline entirely, and what we have is a Mummy for the Indiana Jones mindset - one of the film's many unforgiving faults.

The film begins promisingly with the Egyptian prince, ImHoTep, punished for having an adulterous affair with the pharaoh's daughter. His tongue is cut, and he is consequently buried in bandages in a tomb full of scrappy, ugly scarabs (beetle-like bugs). We flash forward thousands of years later where ImHoTep's tomb is uncovered by a team of explorers seeking the Book of the Dead (If I recall correctly, there is more than one version in the catacombs!). One of the explorers is an ambitious Egyptologist (Rachel Weiz), who has trouble preventing bookcases from toppling at the Museum of Antiquities!

Once the Book of Dead is discovered and the forbidden sayings are uttered, all hell breaks loose as ImHoTep rises from the dead and slowly regenerates his human form. His objective is to bring back his beloved from the dead after commanding all the thunderstorms and sandstorms in his wrath - all in the name of love.

"The Mummy" tries to be a fusion of Indiana Jones and horror cliches, and attempts to tell a tragic love story as well. None work or blend easily. For one, casting Brendan Fraser as a bland, stock Indiana Jones hero who's barely shocked or scared by the Mummy is not wise - he does not have the integrity or fierceness of Harrison Ford. Rachel Weiz is too cute and shrilly as the female lead - she is more appropriate for a screwball comedy than a film of this type.

Arnold Vosoloo is the mean Egyptian mummy but his cold smile and angry eyes are overshadowed by the whirlwind special-effects - this mummy does not even wear bandages! He just evaporates and blows like a twister from one place to another. Where is the sense of menace and succinct body language of Boris Karloff? Whatever sense of loss emanated from ImHoTep's love affair is trampled by an exceeding number of special-effects and histrionic action sequences. But wait a doggone minute: Is this a horror film or an action picture?

"The Mummy" is a mindless blockbuster...but there are no delicious quips, no sense of adventure, and no peril. Some of it may be considered serviceable fun for young minds and there are some spellbinding sequences (the face-like formations on the sand are fabulous). But it's a joyless enterprise - more of a promo for extraordinary digital special-effects like "The Matrix" than a movie. All you'll receive from this parched Mummy is a headache.

Episode V: The best sequel ever made

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980)

An appreciation by Jerry Saravia

In 1980 when I first saw "The Empire Strikes Back," I knew the secret, the big revelation by Darth Vader. I am not sure if I read the comic adaptation first or what the heck happened, but I knew the most famous line in "Star Wars" history - the one that led creator George Lucas to backtrack and make those reviled prequels years later. And when I told my parents the secret prior to the screening (don't know what I was thinking but I was a wild-eyed nine-year-old), they did not believe it. So as I watched "Empire" and the scene came up, I was still rather astonished and it was Mark Hamill's screams as the young Jedi apprentice Luke Skywalker that made the scene gripping, emotional and somewhat provocative. Gripping, emotional, provocative - these are not words which usually describe a Star Wars film. "The Empire Strikes Back" is an astonishing marvel of a movie, a masterful, exciting and illuminating film that soars above any other "Star Wars" film and most other sci-fi fantasy flicks. 

So much has been written about "The Empire Strikes Back" that there is not a lot more to say. It trounces Lucas' original "Star Wars" film by at least 12 parsecs. There is more action, imagination to spare, a love story that brews, more expert villainy, more fascinating creatures, a few bounty hunters, and a lot more mysticism and philosophy regarding the Force. The action is superbly tight and focused in bright, colorful spurts, such as the giant AT-AT walkers that shoot at our Rebel forces, the Millennium Falcon swerving left and right to avoid collision with an asteroid field and the final lightsaber battle between Luke and Darth Vader.

Imagination is on overload in this film, from the discovery of a green little Muppet called Yoda (one of the finest performances in the film by Frank Oz) who tutors Luke into becoming a full-fledged Jedi, to Luke's possible if not eventual fate in a cave, to the Imperial Droids sent to the Hoth system (an ice planet) where the Rebels are hiding, to the carbon freezing chamber that leads to Han Solo's unlucky predicament, to a city in the Clouds where the engineering to keep it maintained is something only George Lucas would understand (or the series' introduction of the smoother-than-thou Lando Calrissian, played by Billy Dee Williams), to a massively ugly creature hidden in an asteroid or some rocky formation in space that may be a nod to "Jaws."

The love story that brews occurs between scoundrel Han Solo (Harrison Ford, in top form before he turned in a lazy performance in "Return of the Jedi") and feisty Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) who likes "nice men" - they both give the film an added touch of humanity. I'd guess that everyone will shed a tear for the final scene between Leia and Han - yep, you know he loves her in this universe. It is unshakable and it could draw a drift between Luke and Leia (of course, "Return of the Jedi" reveals their true relationship).
The villainy grows when we first see the sight of the Emperor, Lord Vader's higher command, who wants Luke annihilated. There are a few more admirals under Vader's command, some clumsier in their battle strategies than others. There is the cryptic Boba Fett (Jeremy Bulloch), a bounty hunter who wants to capture Solo and bring him back to Jabba the Hutt. Finally, what makes "Empire Strikes Back" rise above all others of its ilk is Yoda's lessons on how to focus, concentrate and not be driven by passion, anger. Never give up trying - do or do not, there is no try. I think there is more to take away from these powerful philosophies than almost anything else that you can find in the world of science-fiction fantasy.

"The Empire Strikes Back" does something that, at the time of the film's release, was considered a no-no. There is no ending - it is a cliffhanger for the eventual conclusion of "Return of the Jedi" (this has become more commonplace in franchises of late). The 1983 conclusion should've developed more of what "Empire" set in motion, instead of just Luke and Darth Vader's meeting of the lightsaber minds that yields two more startling revelations (if you have the seen film, you'll know what I mean). If only "Return" focused as much on Solo and Leia (maybe in "Star Wars: Episode VII") rather than making do with a thinly cutesy romance where they cavort with teddy bears. But, hey, that is a different movie. As for "Empire," I shouldn't leave out the wonderful return of Chewbacca (as much a yeller as ever, but how does Solo understand every grunt and yelp as an actual language?) or the droids C3P0 and R2D2, who proves a savior in the end. "The Empire Strikes Back" is more solemn, memorable, wittier and earth-shakingly entertaining and intense than any other chapter in the saga. It is not just a Star Wars chapter - it is one of the grandest, most thrilling, adventurous and romantic space operas ever made. 

Anything harder than Triple X?

8MM (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Director Joel Schumacher must rate as one of my personal guilty pleasures in the movies. He is the creator of such diverse works such as "Batman Forever," "St. Elmo's Fire," "Flatliners" and the execrable "Batman and Forever." Add the much maligned and thoroughly trashed "8mm" to the list - an often thrilling excursion into the unknown, in this case, the world of snuff films.

Nicolas Cage stars as Tom Welles, a private detective working in cahoots with the Missing Persons Bureau. One day, he is asked by a rich widow (Myra Carter) to investigate a possible snuff film found in her late husband's safe. If it is real, she wants to know, and to determine the identity of young half-naked girl  who was supposedly killed by a man in a mask, known as the Machine.

This investigation takes Tom to the porno underworld of L.A., shown to be grungy and filled with neon-green lights. He meets a porno shop clerk with rock music aspirations, Max (Joaquin Phoenix) who may have connections to this depraved world. And depraved it is, as Schumacher goes out of his way to show how snuff or porno films are morally wrong. It is a typically Hollywood-ish moralistic statement, as benign as anything that would have been made in late 60's or early 70's.

"8mm" has moments of tension and there is a general feeling of something unnerving waiting to happen. My problem with the film is that when Tom gets so sucked into this world that he thinks of killing those who are responsible for the girl's death (since the 8mm film is a snuff, after all), it quickly becomes as exploitative and cheap as the very subject that it is criticizing. Plus, Tom's descent into Schumacher's Hell is not as enveloping as one might imagine, and many of Tom's actions seem too over-the-top to truly believe. He becomes a killer after being seduced by the devil ("the devil changes you," quips Max at one point) but such a man would have fallen apart in far more dangerous ways, I think, than the screenplay by Andrew Kevin Walker ("Seven") allows.

The strength in "8mm" is Nicolas Cage's occasionally restrained performance and the first half of the film has an eerie, odorous feel to it, thanks to the decadently colored art direction and cinematography, complete with lots of dark green colors and silhouettes. Another plus is the comic relief supplied by Joaquin Phoenix; the incredibly Satanic porn director (Peter Stormare); and the toughness of James Gandolfini (star of HBO's "The Sopranos") as a low-rent producer. I also like the last shot of Machine, revealed to be anything less than monstrous.

"8mm" is serious stuff, and some of it is campy but it also contains an existential motif that is unfortunately eschewed for action cliches and happy endings. All I can say is that it took real guts for someone in Hollywood to associate themselves with the so-called urban legend of snuff films.

An exciting, humanistic Caped Crusader tale

BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM (1993)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I always appreciated the old Max Fleischer Superman cartoons from back in the day - they were fast, colorful and hugely entertaining. They also afforded the viewer (back in the 1940's) the opportunity to see Superman flying and performing daring feats against the enemies. Those cartoons, some which lasted no more than 10 minutes, didn't allow much time for character development. "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" has the Art Deco style of Max Fleischer and it is colorful and buckets of fun to watch, but it also affords the viewer the time to invest in its characters.

The Bruce Wayne character of this animated film looks a lot like Clark Kent, but that is only a minor flaw. Batman (with the menacing white eyes in his mask, voiced by Kevin Conroy) has been blamed for the deaths of a few goodfellas in Gotham City. It is not Batman who is killing them, it is some figure in a cape and a skull mask known as the Phantasm (calling itself the Grim Reaper who approaches his victims in an emerging fog bank), who is doing away with some 1940's-type gangsters. There is also Bruce's old flame to contend with, a certain Andrea Beaumont (voiced by Dana Delaney), who is back in Gotham for rather cryptic reasons. Andrea's father owed money to a few gangsters and his disappearance thickens the plot. Added to the Caped Crusader's personal demons (and a load of flashbacks to his origins and his once romantic relationship with Andrea) is the return of the mean Joker (a kooky voice and kookier laugh by Mark Hamill!) who knows Batman could never kill.

"Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" is beautifully, structurally animated in its sonic sweep of Gotham City and its various characters (the finale is a scorcher in terms of sound, picture and detail) and it is all anchored by sharp pacing and editing and even sharper dialogue (some of it drips with the irony of the best of 1940's noir). Plus, there is a welcome insight into the dichotomy of Bruce Wayne and Batman. The film makes this duality come alive in ways that Tim Burton's own Batman films or the sequels that followed never quite mustered. You actually care about both Bruce (who hopes to eradicate his crime-fighting skills) and the Dark Knight himself and that makes this 76-minute film sing. "Batman" also works as a love story between Bruce and Andrea, and it ends with a slight note of despair. Still, no worries, kids will love this film as well as adults. Aside from Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight interpretations, "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" is a strong contender for one of the best Batman flicks ever. 

Life Without this Movie

LIFE WITHOUT DICK (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Life Without this Movie, an apropos title. This stench known as "Life Without Dick" is without a doubt the most unfunny, least comical and the least of all comedies or black comedies of all time. Let me clarify further: I have no idea what was attempted here, but it also fails at being about nothing.

Sarah Jessica Parker is Colleen Gibson, who in the opening scene kills her allegedly cheating boyfriend named Dick (Johnny Knoxville) by shooting him in their own house. Seems like Dick, a private dick that is, was going away somewhere with his three pieces of luggage. Harry Connick freaking Junior plays an alleged hitman working for his Irish boss with a Scottish accent, Jared O'Reilly (played rather witlessly yet mildly entertainingly by Craig Ferguson). Alleged meaning Connick has never done a hit. His first hit is supposed to be Colleen's private dick yet, lo and behold, he is already dead thanks to snappy shooter Colleen. Oooh, the irony of it all. And no Parker Brothers board game will be awarded to anyone who can't guess what Sarah Jess ends up doing.

This movie went straight to DVD in 2002, and no wonder because it is not exactly an undiscovered gem. "Life Without Dick" is meant to be a crossbreed of black comedy in the Tarantino vein crossed with a cutesy, overlit romantic comedy. That it fails as both is no surprise - the surprise is that writer-director Bix Skahill can't elicit much in the way of laughs or anything mildly blackly comical. And to top it all off, Connick Freaking Junior is not an actor - a hell of a singer, possibly better than Bing Crosby, but actor, no! Considering Connick sings in this movie, it made me wish he only played a singer in a cameo and nothing more (Crosby by all accounts was a far superior actor than Connick). Sarah Jessica Parker gives one a migraine after a while with her shrill delivery of lines like, "I want to do hits for youuuuuu!" This actress can be anything but dull but in this movie...one can snooze at her alleged histrionic performance.

Alleged hit man, alleged acting, alleged writing, alleged comedy. Basically, "Life Without Dick" is an alleged movie.

Web-Crawler slinging alien goo

SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Spider-Man 3" is the least of the series and possibly the strangest entry in the web-slinging saga by far. Though it has the all the hallmarks of the series, including the web-slinger swinging around the city, more dramatic relationships and high-octane action scenes, there is a fundamental creepiness that sets in. "Spider-Man 3" is not as high-spirited or as comical as the other films - a darkness is immersed in this sequel that makes it less of a rehash and more of an adult fairy-tale. I consider that a plus, but it does make for diminishing returns the third time around.

Fairy-tale suits the Spider-Man series because it is after all a growing love affair between hapless Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and ambitious, talented actress Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) in a world populated by freaks with strange powers (this film is probably the closest Raimi has come to making a Tim Burton movie minus the grotesqueries). Peter is riding high on the popularity of his alter-ego, the masked crime-fighting web slinger, Spider-Man, and is scoring high grades in college. Mary Jane is in a Broadway musical singing Irving Berlin's "They Say It's Wonderful." Everything seems great until we learn that Mary Jane is fired after getting negative reviews and resorts to being a singing waitress! Peter has to contend with his best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), who bears a vehement grudge on Peter after learning that Pete is Spider-Man and killed Harry's father. There is also an ambitious photographer, Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who wants a salaried position at the Daily Bugle with his photos of Spider-Man (none more amazing than what Peter could take). There's also an escaped convict (Thomas Haden Church) who runs into a particle accelerator and turns into Sandman, a shape-shifting sand monster; alien goo from outer space that finds itself attached to Spidey's suit and turns Brock into some demonic villain with monstrous fangs called Venom; Peter's lab partner, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), who is saved in a crane accident by Spidey, and my spidey-sense is tingling and telling me the plot is on overload for a 2 hour and 19 minute film.

Back to the creepy factor. Sam Raimi and Ivan Raimi have concocted a script that veers into something more unseemly than what you might find in a Spider-Man comic, almost as I said earlier into a dark fairy- tale land. The film nudges us with some sense of dread, something forbidden. The alien goo, or symbiote, is a clue in that it doesn't allow for Peter Parker to flower as an adult - it instead brings on an aggressiveness, a necessity to kill his enemies without provocation and it gives him a black Spidey suit. It also makes Peter more of a sexual creature, a ladies' man with a pseudo-Goth look (the joke is that it draws more disapproving looks from female onlookers than anything else). But it also proves to make him distant from Mary Jane, as if a commitment to marriage suddenly eludes him. Hard to say if Peter Parker ever had a romp in the hay with Mary Jane between the end of Part 2 and the beginning of Part 3, but one gets the impression he might be a virginal web-slinger, drawing more attention to his police scanner and catching the bad guys than redhead Mary Jane's needs and wants. This makes for a more intellectual and implied connection between Mary Jane and Peter, and that is disappointing because they had something more solid and emotional in the second film. Nevertheless, there is a connection and it is imbued with a little more maturity - Peter has no doubts about their relationship but Mary Jane does, especially after Spidey shares his famous MJ kiss with Gwen Stacy!

Part of the problem is the introduction of Gwen Stacy - she is saved by Spidey and clearly is attracted to him and Peter! She is also Eddie Brock's girlfriend, but these two characters could've used more nourishment. Bryce Dallas Howard is such a flirt with Peter that you wish her character was given more to do in providing some added tension between Peter and Mary Jane (her character meant a lot to Peter in the comics, considering her demise). Instead we get saddled with Sandman's own past history with Peter's Uncle Ben (in yet another reprise by Cliff Robertson) and we learn a terrible secret that seems vaguely contrived. The original running time of this film was over two and a half hours and that was probably more fitting for all the plotlines and characters on display here.

Of the three villains, the only one that really jumps at you is James Franco's New Goblin character. He is fierce and unrelenting and he has a history with Mary Jane and Peter Parker. That makes for an emotional crescendo in the finale that is devastating and sincere (his sly wink at Peter at one point is eerie). This character clearly supersedes Thomas Haden Church, who doesn't really get a chance to do much with his character (CGI does it all) but Church's last scene is stunning and pinpoints a deeper theme in this film - all villains in the Spidey universe are flawed and acknowledge their mistakes yet can't help themselves. They made a choice, as does Spider-Man and everyone else in these movies, and they are going to have to live with it.

Deep, melancholic stuff in this "Spider-Man 3." A good picture overall, despite it being overstuffed, and possibly better than the critics claimed. It's not as surprisingly inventive as the original film or as colorful as the second film, but it is richly layered and you can't say Raimi didn't give it his best shot. It is more of an adult fairy-tale crossed with comic-book theatrics, romantic yearnings and guilt-ridden characters.