Xena: Warrior Princess The Movie! Or not?

DESATURATING OUR COMIC-BOOK HEROES

By Jerry Saravia

At the 2014 Comic-Con in San Diego, a new Wonder Woman still was revealed to eager comic-book fans. Who didn't love Wonder Woman from the comics and the Lynda Carter TV series of the 70's - the warrior princess with the red top, golden Lasso of Truth, the blue star-spangled shorts or culottes to some (used to be a long skirt in the "Sensation Comics"), the bright red boots, her tiara, her bulletproof bracelets, ready for action. Below are the original appearances of Wonder Woman, from her inception in the 1940's and the slight changes in appearance through the 1970's via the television medium.

At Comic-Con, the new cinematic Wonder Woman was unveiled and looked like this:

Granted, starting in 2011, desaturation of the Wonder Woman costume in a post-Christopher Nolan world of troubled superheroes began to take shape. Witness the Justice League comics from 2011 with the revamped look for Wonder Woman:

So why does the new Wonder Woman of the "Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice" film look like a warrior princess of the J.R.R. Tolkien world or a Xena wannabe than the American icon of primary colors of the past? We can ask the same question of the CW series of "Arrow" based on Green Arrow, accent on the green which is relatively muted in the new show, or the virtually burgundy red costumed look of the new CW "Flash" TV series? The old Flash from the comics, even the 1990's TV series, had the fiery red color of the very fast hero.

But what is going on lately with our comic-book heroes? Why desaturate the colors? I think the reason may be an international economic agenda. Most of these expensive epics, including "Iron Man 3," are released overseas first, specifically China where a lot of the money is made (witness "Transformers: Age of Extinction" which passed the worldwide 1 billion mark thanks to China's box-office grosses). Case in point with "Iron Man 3" - Tony Stark barely wears his red-gold plated armor costume through most of the film (although there is the Iron Patriot played by Don Cheadle). Marvel doesn't seem to extremely modify their heroes' costumes, except for the new Spider-Man, and the Avengers do stand pretty close to their original incarnations (Mark Ruffalo's super-sized Hulk is as green as the Hulk can be). The DC universe has taken the desaturation to its limits, however. Perhaps by muting the colors that so resemble our American flag and thus represent America (Wonder Woman, Superman, etc), it is an easier sell to foreign markets who are not keen on America and its standing in our world nowadays - in other words, nothing too American. Another odd circumstance regarding a high-profile franchise with a hero, Indiana Jones, was in the first teasers released for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." The International teaser did not feature the American flag as seen during the convoy of Army trucks at Area 51 - in the U.S. version, a close-up of the flag during the same shot is present.

The notion is practically more economic than political...and perhaps the Man of Steel costume may reflect a post-9/11 America or maybe the costume designers forgot that the look was reminiscent of Bizarro or the evil Supes from "Superman III." We can make all the excuses we want and justify such glaringly wrongheaded revisionism in general - I say, forget what the world thinks of us, and bring back our primary colors. I mean, who wants a desaturated "Dick Tracy" movie unlike the primary colors so evident in Warren Beatty's 1990 version? 

Lloyd Dobler would not watch this movie

MUST LOVE DOGS (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Now here is something that could have had potential. Diane Lane and John Cusack in a romantic comedy set in the world of Internet dating. Yes, potential indeed and, sadly, potential does exist, just not in this movie. "Must Love Dogs" is a forgettable sham, a black hole of a movie that perpetrates the belief that love blossoms between the right people, even if they are wrong for each other. Actually, it seems to indicate that the slightest flaw in the opposite sex is enough reason to dismiss that person.

Diane Lane is the lonely bird, Sarah Nolan, who has just been through a bitter divorce. She is a preschool teacher who lives alone in a big, expansive house and unsuccessfully searches for men at the local supermarket. Sarah's sister (Elizabeth Perkins) insists she go online and place an ad, though her sister has already done it and posted Sarah's graduation photo. Sarah meets a few men, including the typical crybaby date, and all prove fruitless. That is until she meets Jake (John Cusack), who builds racing boats out of wood and continually watches "Dr. Zhivago." They both have dogs, though they do not own them personally. The date doesn't go well, and Sarah has her eye on a guy with a PHD (Dermot Mulroney). By the way, Sarah thinks he has a good butt - I don't and could care less. I think we all know where this is headed.

The best thing in this movie is Diane Lane, a helluva good actress who can do better (consider "A Walk on the Moon," which was a far more poignant and romantic film). She is too good for this movie and supplies it with certain nuances that are not in the script. She has a few standout scenes, especially when trying to look alluring at a supermarket - the key is in which department. But her Sarah character is not developed - what kind of guy is she looking for? It is clear that she has no tolerance for 40-something guys who bed 20-something women (it is what caused her divorce). By the end of the film, you'll wonder if knowing that you love the same movie is all it takes to marry Sarah.

John Cusack is also too good for this movie, or even in fluffier fluff like "Serendipity." Cusack possesses a charm that comes from his own unawareness that he is charming. The beauty of Cusack in films like "High Fidelity" or "Say Anything" is that he is humble and uncertain - that is his gift, his special knack for playing men who are not too comfortable in their own skins. In "Must Love Dogs," he plays an average joe whose only uncertainty is that he doesn't want to sell a boat that can be cut in half and displayed in a wall. Jake's unerring eye for honesty and his confidence builds for a rather superficial role for Cusack.

"Must Love Dogs" was written by Gary David Goldberg, an executive producer and writer of TV shows such as "M*A*S*H," "Family Ties" and "Spin City." Unfortunately, he's also responsible for the unashamedly (and thickly) sentimental "Dad" (I can't think of another movie that was as purely puerile in its emotional states as that one) and the movie that reads and feels and sounds like a commercial sitcom with commercial tie-ins, "Bye Bye Love." "Must Love Dogs" is not as teeth chattering as those, but certainly doesn't evoke the wit and polish of his TV classics.

This movie is strictly by-the-numbers in every department. There is the gay best friend, the family sing-along (in this case, "The Partridge Family" theme), the Meet Cute scenes, the obligatory dim-witted blonde bimbo, etc. There is no surprise, no depth of emotion, no real risks, and any movie that stars John Cusack and Diane Lane should require all three. It doesn't say much for such good actors when the high point is their searching for condoms - that shouldn't be the highlight of a teen comedy.

You must really, really, really love any kind of romantic comedy to love this movie. For a purely soft, harmless safe bet, "Must Love Dogs" may be enough. For myself, I'll stick with risk-takers like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Even Lloyd Dobler would prefer the latter.

Breaking the Walls of a Small Town

DOGVILLE (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2004)

Ten Best Films of the 2000's

"Dogville" is a masterpiece of theatre, and intrinsically flawed cinematically. How can a film be both things? Well, consider that this is the avant-garde work of Danish director Lars von Trier, who made one of my favorite films of the 1990's, "Breaking the Waves." He is the creator of Dogme95, a group of directors who use found locations, shoot on hand-held video, and so on. "Dogville" fits the bill to a tee. It is as experimental as one can imagine, as any film can be, but its theatrical staging limits its goals. Still, despite some flaws, this is a remarkable achievement and a near-masterful morality tale as only von Trier can make.

The town is Dogville, a Rocky Mountains hamlet so hidden from the world that it only has one major road to get there, Elm Street. There are fifteen denizens in this town, including a retired doctor (Philip Baker Hall) who's also a hypochondriac, a blind man (Ben Gazzara) who loves to talk about sunlight and shadows, and the town's lone sexpot (Chloe Sevigny). The most significant character is Tom (Paul Bettany), a would-be writer who holds town meetings to discuss the "goodness" of people. Into this sleepy hamlet comes Grace (Nicole Kidman), a woman on the run from gangsters. Tom takes her in because he likes her and doesn't want her to climb the surface of a mountain to escape. Tom persuades the townspeople to accept Grace and use their innate goodness to give her a chance. They give her two weeks - if they like her, she can stay. If not, she better buy some good shoes and climb that damn mountain. Grace offers to help the townspeople - they are reluctant at first, but then she starts getting paid for unnecessary work. All is fine and dandy until the police come into town looking for Grace, who may be a bank robber. Is she a simple bank robber who's holding some stash somewhere, or is she more dangerous than the people of Dogville might have thought?

As I mentioned earlier, Lars von Trier could never make a straightforward film without indulging in stylistic strokes. The difference is that, this time, von Trier has taken his Dogme rules and relied on a simple set. As evidenced by the opening overhead shot, we notice that this is simply a soundstage with chalk outlines of character names and streets (even a chalk-outlined dog named Moses). There are no visible doors or walls - the chalk outlines are the only geographical indicators of this town. Even a small rock formation stands in for a mountain. We do see a real car, a real bench, some real beds, and a wall that stands in for the window display of a small shop. Outside of that, one has to suspend disbelief and assume that this is a real town. The problem is that it obviously resembles a theatrical setting where a play is about to transpire. I admire von Trier for taking this big a step but it limits and robs us of any real visual images (even Ingmar Bergman's "After the Rehearsal," which used sets, was never this stagy). There are only three striking images in the film. One is of Grace in a truck from an overhead angle as she sleeps while we see her through a transparent tarp. The other is the introduction of Grace at night as she walks calmly down the road while everyone sleeps. Lastly, I love the use of overhead shots in general, though von Trier doesn't allow for more inventive camera set-ups.

Such theatrical staginess, though, doesn't diminish the story - in some ways, it enhances it. This is strange because I just said that, visually, the film fails to work as a visual poem. Yet the story and characters emerge so clearly and provocatively that I didn't mind too much. The reason I give it more credit is because I expect von Trier to do something like this. Other directors might have failed where von Trier succeeds admirably.

The most powerful performance is clearly Nicole Kidman's, the most adventurous actress of our generation. She evokes the fragile, human, emotional side of Grace so well that we can't help but adore her. She is like a lost puppy seeking sanctuary from killers. The town of Dogville slowly embraces her, but then they abuse her, torture her, rape her, humiliate her, and then deny they are doing such wrongdoing. Kidman evokes so many layers to Grace (including a shocking character revelation) that it is easily the most brave piece of acting she has ever committed to film.

I also admire Paul Bettany as the intellectual Tom who falls in love with Grace. Tom's dilemma begins to stifle him - does he love the townspeople more than Grace or vice versa? If the townspeople want to do away with Grace, will he be on their side or is he on Grace's side? Bettany is so good at camouflaging what the character might really be thinking that he'll keep you in suspense as to his inevitable decision.

The rest of the cast is also excellent, including Lauren Bacall, who is feisty over her gooseberry bushes, Stellan Skarsgard as a sexually repressed apple orchard farmer, Jeremy Davies as a dim checkers player, Patricia Clarkson as a mousy, strict mother who is fiercely protective of her children, and James Caan as a mob boss, among others.

"Dogville" is compelling and fascinating from start to finish. It is the kind of dazzling, experimental work we expect from Lars von Trier. The ending comes in huffing and puffing when it should have climaxed smoothly. Still, despite its minor faults, "Dogville" is a rare, brave, challenging work.

Frivolous God of Thunder sequel

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The "Iron Man" trilogy has rocked with imagination, thrilling action scenes but, most importantly, a rousing hero was found in the charismatic performance by Robert Downey, Jr. who had been given the chance to develop his Tony Stark. "Thor: The Dark World" is not in the same vein, heck not even in the same universe. Intermittently funny, it is mostly a yawn-inducing sequel with hardly the humor or gravitas that director Kenneth Branagh and actor Chris Hemsworth brought to the original Thor. Even the subtitle, "The Dark World," sounds like a cliche from the world of J.R.R Tolkien.

The Dark Elf Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) wants to shroud the world in darkness. Yep, you can't say you have not heard that before. Except he wants to literally shroud the world in darkness with the help of a weapon called Aether, which looks like floating spilled ink that an astronaut let loose into space. After Malekith fails to unleash the Aether in a battle sequence that looks like "Lord of the Rings" complete with amber red tones and dark gloomy skies, the spilled ink is placed in a stone column to never be found again. Yeah, right. Next we get the mighty Thor (Chris Hemsworth) wielding his hammer at a rock monster in yet another battle sequence. All is right with the universe until we learn that the Nine Realms are about to be aligned, allowing for portals on Earth. Natalie Portman returns as astrophysicist Jane Foster who discovers these portals in some abandoned factory where kids are throwing soda cans into this portal (everything disappears in this portal and lands in the world of Asgard). So far, so good. Unfortunately, Jane accidentally releases the Aether which consumes her. Naturally, we get Malekith who wants possession of it and we also get the sweet return of Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor's adoptive brother, whom Thor reluctantly enlists his help in fighting Malekith and locating other portals.

When "Thor: The Dark World" focuses on the bitter, bruised relationship between Thor and Loki, I was sold. When it focused on Thor and his love for Jane, I was also sold (though Portman is not half as convincing as I would hope). When we see Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard), now placed in a mental institution, I was happy as can be to see the return of an eccentric character in the Marvel universe. Likewise, I was delighted to see the return of Kat Dennings as Jane's quirky intern (I still insist she should have played Jane Foster). But the movie gets bogged down in lots of flashy special-effects and far too many brightly lit shots of spaceships and rainbow colored passageways. When I see ships firing lasers at each other, I started to think I was watching "Star Wars," not Thor. The final, interminable climax has Thor and Malekith pounding each other from one portal to another - it literally gave me a headache. The movie loses sight of its characters and of the quirky humor of the original film. I also wanted to learn about Malekith who is simply an insidiously evil elf - I mean, why is this guy wanting to shroud the world in darkness? There is a hint of revenge in his plan but it is shrouded in noise and overkill.

"Thor: The Dark World" places emphasis on action over plot, explosions and razzle-dazzle over character exploration. Director Alan Taylor takes over Branagh's duties but he is not as epic a director as the Shakespearean Branagh. As far the characters are concerned, only Loki rises as the most fascinating villain in any of these movies - his acrimonious relationship with Thor and Thor's father (Anthony Hopkins) should've and could've given this movie a shot of urgency. As it stands, the movie creates a far more cardinal sin - it is boring.

Arctic air equals more sharks!

SHARKNADO 2: THE SECOND ONE (2014)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Sharknado 2: The Second One" may as well have been directed by the ZAZ (Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker) comedy team - it is suffused with lots of jokes though the comic timing is frequently off. It is meant to be a bad movie, a fitfully enjoyable one at that but a bad movie on purpose. It is ten times better than the original SyFy hit that had more lulls than Tara Reid's horrendous line readings - it is stupider, zanier and damn right insanely over-the-top.

Not much of a plot here. Ian Ziering and Tara Reid are Fin and April, the divorced couple from the original, who are on a booking tour for a best-selling book April wrote called "How to Survive a Sharknado." While on a plane trip, a sharknado occurs and sharks burst through the plane and kill pilots, passengers and stewardesses, including a sweet cameo by purple-haired Kelly Osbourne. Fin lands the plane safely in New York City where they hope to meet their relatives. But no sooner before one can say, "Jump the Shark!" (an actual line of dialogue in the film), Fin gets in action-hero mode and straps on a chainsaw ready to kill the sharks who are steadily approaching the Big Apple in not one but two tornados! God forbid if those two tornados clash into the Empire State Building which amazingly, through the sheer act of magical intuition, Fin figures out and decides to...well, see the movie and you will see how the film literally jumps the shark.

"Sharknado 2" has a plethora of cinematic in-jokes from "Star Wars," "Kill Bill," "Airplane!" (Robert Hays cameo included), James Bond and various cameos from Judd Hirsch doing a semi-reprise of his "Taxi" character, to Wil Wheaton and Perez Hilton and the hosts of "Live with Kelly and Michael," to Matt Lauer and Al Roker playing it very straight from the "Today" set as they do a running commentary on sharknados, apparently being pushed by arctic air (Global Warming, much?). There a host of other cameos but Hirsch and Lauer and Roker rock the boat.

Crazier, loopier, dumber than people who film actual tornados in the Midwest, and full proof that Tara Reid cannot carry a line of dialogue with much conviction, "Sharknado 2" is not for cineastes or even B-movie lovers. It is for lovers of Z cinema, the lowest of lows of cinematic crudity. Decapitations and amputations litter the screen (including the Statue of Liberty's head, more thrillingly executed in "Cloverfield" but, hey, that one is a B movie) and bad special-effects rule the day. Ziering seems to love killing sharks and Tara packs a saw in a bit cribbed from "Grindhouse," which may been cribbed from exploitation films of the 70's. There are still some lulls and not quite as many angry sharks as I had hoped (though there is a subliminal hark back to "Jaws the Revenge" involving April that made me laugh) but I can't hate a movie where Fin proposes to April with a ring still found in the...well, it is priceless and inspired. 

Apply to a different fraternity

OLD SCHOOL (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2003)

So there are the typical gross-out, raunchy teenage or college-based comedies released every month - their gross-out factor (as in "Van Wilder") is what determines their success. Then there are teenage or college-based comedies where the raunch factor is at a minimum - mostly they want to get audiences swooning for a horny male and female to be together happily ever after. The latter may be a perfect description of "Can't Hardly Wait," the most innocuous of all recent variations of this tiresome genre. "Old School" is fairly raunch-less and features almost no gross-out gags. I suppose we can be eternally grateful for that, but there is so little humor in it that I am flabbergasted that anyone would call this a comedy.

The opening sequence has Mitch (Luke Wilson) discovering his girlfriend (Juliette Lewis) engaged in sexual blindfolding games with other people. Naturally, Mitch breaks up with her and moves into a new house. To celebrate, his buddies stage a party that is roughly the size of a rave, complete with rap singer Snoop Dogg performing for the party crowd. Mitch's buddies also decide to start a fraternity (this coming from 30-something men) at the local university and hold meetings and other nonsense at Mitch's new house. Of course, Wilson finds this idea ludicrous but that doesn't stop him from agreeing. To see grown men like Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn (who both play Wilson's buddies) is a little creepy to say the least - why would men with families want to get in touch with their inner college selves by running a fraternity? Somehow, the idea of Eric Stoltz as an aging college student in "Kicking and Screaming" was more convincing than what is shown here.

"Old School" has no real theme or value or any real laughs. Mostly, I watched ninety-minutes of this travesty without cracking so much as a smile. I liked the scene with "Crossfire's" James Carville on the debate team and Juliette Lewis is always a crackling presence (though her appearance is far too brief). And there is the sweet, pleasing presence of Ellen Pompeo (formerly cast in "Moonlight Mile") as Wilson's former college sweetheart. Sean William Scott's cameo as an expert on horses and tranquilizers is always good for a mild chuckle. Otherwise, there is not a single redeeming feature in "Old School." Grade D-. Class dismissed.

Mother Teresa, that clever little devil

HELL'S ANGEL (1994)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

British author with a sharp pen and sharper knives, Christopher Hitchens, came out full force against Mother Teresa in a BBC-produced documentary short called "Hell's Angel." Mother Teresa is normally equated with being a living saint, a woman who championed and supported the poor. Normally she is not considered anything remotely hellish, at least not in character. Hitchens has painted a damning character assassination of Mother Teresa, demonizing her and debunking her saintly demeanor.

From the start, we learn that a BBC reporter, Malcolm Muggeridge, went to see Mother Teresa and witnessed a miracle. The miracle shown in a newly developed Kodak film for the camera apparently shows the divine light, as if Teresa gave off this light supernaturally. In a headlong series of montages with repeated chanting heard on the soundtrack, Hitchens crucifies Teresa relentlessly, from her pro-life and anti-birth control stance, to accepting millions from some corrupt businessmen including Charles Keating (involved in banking fraud and racketeering), to the deplorable conditions of various Missionaries of Charity hospices, to her declaration that the world is being "much helped by the suffering of the poor," etc. The assumption from Hitchens is that Teresa did not believe in giving proper health care to the poor, though she received it herself. The conditions in these places is shown as unsanitary and deemed as such by witnesses, especially when you consider the use of unclean needles, no IV and nothing more than aspirin to curb their pain. Ouch!

"Hells' Angel" is incendiary times Hitchens 140 squared. Most of this short 24-minute film is compelling and there is ample evidence to support that Mother Teresa was a legend, a saint to the Western audience who were deceived by the media-created icon (through no fault of her own) who gave her life to the poor. The late Hitchens himself was an avowed atheist who doesn't blame Teresa as much as the media forces that surreptitiously clouded her with ethereal light. However, he has been quoted as saying the following: “She was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction." Although Hitchens speaks such words in the film, Teresa's own admission to such pronouncements in the film, more or less paraphrased, can give one pause. Perhaps it is indicative that Hitchens simply has a problem with how religion is practiced, that it is largely politically motivated, rather than Mother Teresa's innocent embracement of it.