Director needs some Clobberin' Time

FANTASTIC FOUR (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Originally reviewed in 2006)

When I saw the original "X-Men," I remember thinking that it was a full-blown comic-book come to life with effects galore and amazing, tactile super powers displayed with verve. "Fantastic Four" could've been another example of that - it has effects galore and plenty of amazing super powers displayed with everything money can buy. But it is solely an example of special-effects capabilities without human interest.

We have the introduction of the Fantastic Four team that includes brainy scientist, Dr. Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), who becomes Elastic Man; his on/off again love interest, Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), who becomes the Invisible Girl; Ben Grimm, Reed's best friend, who metamorphoses into a walking rock formation called the Thing; and finally Sue's brother, Johnny Storm (Chris Evans), who becomes the Human Torch. Their powers are inadvertently obtained by a cosmic ray explosion while on a mission at a space station. Also on board this mission is the arrogant, evil Dr. Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon), who has his DNA fundamentally changed as well, becoming the evil-as-evil-can-be Dr. Doom with an electrical charge all over his body.

Some of this is sort of fun. I enjoy seeing Johnny Boy using his powers when skiing (and making himself a jacuzzi atop a snowy peak) or trying to stop a heat-seeking missile; Reed Richards extending his fingers through a crevice or grabbing toilet paper from an adjoining room while sitting in the john; and the Thing lifting a fire truck that is hanging from a bridge. In terms of effects and wondrous new ways for Invisible Girl to develop a force shield or undressing so she can walk around invisible, this movie has ample to offer (and, yes, we get to hear the famous lines like "It's Clobberin' Time" or "Flame On!"). In terms of a credible story or three-dimensional characters, the movie stops short and focuses on one chaotic situation after another. We get shards of humanity about the Thing losing his fiancee because of his affinity for giant pebbles, and there is a substandard love story between Richards and Sue Storm. But Dr. Doom is so inherently evil that we never understand his motives - does he want to be the supervillain Dr. Doom because Richards has whisked away the woman Doom wanted to marry, namely Sue Storm? It seems Doom's biggest concern overall is that his interview on Larry King Live is abruptly cancelled. Hardly characteristic of a Marvel supervillain.

There is energy and bounce to the action scenes but "Fantastic Four" assumes that it is enough to see the fantastic super powers on display and nothing more. The similar "The Incredibles" already did it with more humanity and character interest a year earlier. After seeing Marvel Comics' cinematic adaptations like "Hulk" and the Spider-Man movies that set a whole new standard of character first, action second (isn't that why we like comic-books?), "Fantastic Four" falls very, very short. The Thing should've clobbered the director for lack of character development.

Shangri-La adventure deserves entombment

THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There is something peculiar about Brendan Fraser. In some movies, like the underrated "Blast From the Past," he is nothing short of stupendous and full of an inspired manic energy. In "The Mummy" series, he is so boring and insipid, words I've used far too many times, that it is a shock anyone considered casting him. Heck, Fraser looks the part of a 40's stock leading man with an oversized head and has got the goods to deliver a wickedly inspired performance, but he never cuts loose. Not once, not in the entire "Mummy" series. And this latest snoozefest, "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," has about as much to do with mummies as Indiana Jones has to do with cockroaches.

Fraser is the Rick O'Connell character, an Egyptologist who spends his days fishing, bored out of his numbskull because he so glories the days of shooting mummies and experiencing high adventure. And his wife, Evelyn (now played by a less spirited Maria Bello, replacing Rachel Weisz), is yearning for those days as well, especially after writing two bestselling books. And they live with a butler in a mansion right out of Bruce Wayne country. Yawn. But their son, Alex (Luke Ford), is spirited and has high adventure on his mind. The plot has to do with an accidentally revived 4,000 year-old Chinese emperor (Jet Li) who can command all the elements to start an avalanche but has a little problem fighting Yetis (a furry pack of giant Abonimable Snowmans that look about as real as the werewolf in "Van Helsing"). Rick and Evelyn decide to help their son fight the evil emperor and the entire Terracotta army, which takes them to Shangri-La. Also in accompaniment is an immortal Chinese woman and her mother, but the less said about them, the better.

I wish I enjoyed this movie but, alas, like the previous "Mummy" films, there is no sense of jeopardy, wit, adventure or anything on the level of awe. Fraser has seen these special-effected skeleton armies and mummified remains come to life so often, it seems he is yawning just looking at them (this is dully reflected in his dialogue to boot). Same with Maria Bello. They could care less and the urgency is lost. Jet Li is mostly animated in this film, which means anyone could've played this role, and Michelle Yeoh as a sorceress somehow maintains a straight face but her one shared moment with Li is short-shrifted for more CGI, less humanity. To make things worse, the movie is frantically cut from so many angles, particularly during the action scenes, that all sense of spatial continuity is lost (seriously, how many different angles does an explosion need to be seen from?) This "Mummy" film deserves entombment.

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.