Success is the rarity; failure is the norm

HEAVEN'S GATE (1980) - What went wrong!

By Jerry Saravia

"Heaven's Gate" first showed signs of life through United Artists. They had faith in its director and their studio had its first shot at actually carving its mark in the industry - an actual film made on their dime where they were primarily known for solely distributing other people's movies. The dime itself was pricey, a 11 million dollar budget ballooning to a hefty 40 million dollar price tag, with the assurance that the director, Michael Cimino, would make a western masterpiece. Cimino was just coming off the box-office success of "The Deer Hunter," a hard-hitting Vietnam picture that won Best Picture and he won his Best Director Oscar. The signs of going overbudget began immediately and Cimino, ever the perfectionist, went overboard with self-imposed delays. Construction of sets, demanding numerous retakes, and waiting for a specific cloud to enter the horizon in one shot were among a host of its problems. It was a relentless studio nightmare.

The result: "Heaven's Gate" was a critical and financial flop, possibly the biggest financial loser in U.S. cinema history. I am not one to pay much attention to a movie's budget yet, as it happened, the critics excoriated the picture for its excessive budget principally - they were ready to hate it. This colossal failure led to a bankrupt studio (Transamerica sold the studio to MGM) and it sullied the career of an egotistical and overpraised director (his last picture was "Sunchaser" in 1996, which went directly to video). The film's reputation even led to Kevin Costner's own directorial debut, a western no less, "Dances With Wolves" to be dubbed "Kevin's Gate" though that proved to be an error in judgment since the film was a box-office smash and won 1990's Best Picture prize.

Most film aficionados are fully aware of the film's disastrous reputation, but is it any good? Is it really as mind-numbingly awful with not a single redeeming feature as New York Daily News critic Kathleen Carroll once declared? Actually, no, but it is predictably overlong (I saw the 2 1/2 hour version). It is often a stirring picture, full of marvelous, meticulous sights of the Old West that go beyond what we might have seen in a John Ford picture...but that is where my praise ends. The film itself is also far too serious, too laid-back and often incomprehensible.

Based on the Johnson County War in Wyoming in the 1890's, the film takes too long to get to the film's inherent conflict. The conflict is between the influx of European immigrants, who came to the U.S. as settlers, and the wealthy cattle barons and the ranchers. In a historical revisionist move by Cimino, mercenaries are hired by ranchers to kill immigrants suspected of stealing cattle (These murders are sanctioned by the Governor of Wyoming, the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States.) At endless board meetings, the mantra spread by the Wyoming Stock Growers Association is that these immigrants are "thieves and anarchists" and 125 of them are placed on a death list. Christopher Walken is Nate Champion, the enforcer who keeps reminding us of another signature line of dialogue towards the immigrants: "Go back where you came from!" Kris Kristofferson is the stoic Marshal of Johnson County, Jim Averill, who tries to make sense of what is happening. Isabella Huppert is the madam of a bordello who loves both Jim and Nate.

My issue is that "Heaven's Gate" is not coherent, not fully shaped at the screenplay level to accommodate an epic running time that initially, during its test screenings for the studio bosses, eclipsed that of "Gone With the Wind." On one hand, it wants to be the tragic story of how America had no interest in competing with immigrants with regards to grazing cattle. Cimino wants to show how racist wealthy white people were, to the point of having Frank Canton (Sam Waterston), the head of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, shoot an immigrant in the head in plain sight. On the other hand, it wants to be a tragic love story, a romantic triangle with Kristofferson and Walken competing for Huppert's love except Walken has little rapport with Huppert and it is clear Huppert is more in love with Kristofferson (Kris Kristofferson's affections for Ellen Burstyn's Alice in "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" were far more believable.)

The key word to the bombast of "Heaven's Gate" is ENDLESS. The film is endless - it never comes to a full stop. The movie features an endless prologue at Harvard University that distances us immediately - dust and dirt and amber tones make Harvard look like a university in the middle of the desert. There is an introduction to the graduating classmates who figure later in the story but the intro is nothing earth-shattering, aside from John Hurt's endless speech and many scenes of people dancing in the courtyard. Familiar faces like Jeff Bridges, Terry O'Quinn, Geoffrey Lewis and many others pop up and disappear, spouting incoherent dialogue. Later in the film, we get more dancing and sometimes people in roller skates dance and dance. Then we get violinists who play and play forever. Cimino could have trimmed this movie below a two-hour running time and saved us a lot of endless music and dancing that would've been at home in a Warner Brothers musical western.

Lots of overcast skies and a muddy look and a superbly detailed reconstruction of a long lost era gives "Heaven's Gate" authenticity to be sure, but it is no Altman's "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" (Altman's film was also a bit long too, but a far more rewarding and enriching experience). The biggest tragedy of "Heaven's Gate" isn't its financial loss - it is that it had a lot to say...and none of it ever made it to the screen.  

LaBute Screws us with no rhyme or reason

YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 1998)

Neil LaBute is a talented writer and director and I noticed it right away when I saw his directorial debut, "In the Company of Men," a lacerating black comedy about man's inhumanity towards women, and men. I've seen the film twice and I was both shocked and gratified by the film's depiction of its characters, especially the insensitive, insulting Chad, marvelously played by Aaron Eckhart. "Your Friends and Neighbors" is LaBute's second effort, and it is less angry and less intoxicating than it should have been. I am shocked to say this, but LaBute has crafted a fairly, dare I say, tame and flat film of little consequence.

The film begins with people who have no interest in developing healthy relationships with each other. We see the contemptuous, masculine, arrogant Cary (Jason Patric) who prepares for a date by practicing his lines in bed while writhing with faux pleasure. There's also Man (played by Ben Stiller) who tries desperately to please his wife (Catherine Keener) but she doesn't like it when he talks while copulating - "F---ing is not a time for sharing". When she has an affair, she coldly states that the best part of sex is the silence. In retribution, Man pursues another guy's wife (a bland Amy Brenneman), who wants desperately to find a man who can maintain an erection. Brenneman's husband (played by a porcine, mustached Aaron Eckhart) can't seem to satisfy his wife so he masturbates, even while she's in bed - he gets more pleasure from himself than with anyone else. However, when they go shopping together, he insists that the best method of resuscitating their sex life is to "treat each other like meat".

"Your Friends and Neighbors" is LaBute's attempt to show that relationships have no saving grace, and that the partners gradually grow bored with each other. Unfortunately, his characters lack sting and depth - they are glamorous nobodies wafting through their existence with no desire or interest in each other. This is quite a cynical point to make, but LaBute infuses this tale with a static charge that renders everything as flat and monotonous. The movie is devoid of color and humor, and the characters emerge as vapid ciphers. Compare this to Woody Allen's "Manhattan" and "Deconstructing Harry" and you'll see that Woody goes well beyond the primary cynicism - he explores what makes his characters tick.

As a writer, LaBute does have some witty, anarchic moments, though. There is the running gag of an art-gallery assistant (Nastassja Kinski) who stares at the same unseen art object with each of the main characters - they ask her the same questions with the same exact responses. Then there's the undeniably well-cast Jason Patric (doing some of his best work since "After Dark, My Sweet") as the meanest, least likable character since Chad from "In the Company of Men." Patric has two virtuoso scenes: one set in a locker room with his friends where he confesses that a homosexual encounter in high school was the best lay he ever had, and another scene where he mutilates Keener with such piercing words that she is reduced to tears - an interesting scene because it shows that Keener may not be such a frigid woman after all.

Beyond some frank sexual talk and manners, "Your Friends and Neighbors" is dull to sit through and the characters are ill-defined and impossible to care about. LaBute is still a talent to watch for but he needs to imbue his characters with some degree of humanity so that his dialogue can cut some fairly deep wounds in all of us. "In the Company of Men" could have been a sick joke about teasing a deaf woman and then dumping her for the sake of revenge, but LaBute was after bigger game and revealed some strong character personalities. "Your Friends and Neighbors" is about people who screw each other with no rhyme or reason. It's just a sick joke.

1977: The Year Hollywood Changed

THE GEORGE LUCAS WARS: 

EPISODE I - ATTACK OF THE FILM SNOBS

By Jerry Saravia (Reprinted and updated from original reocities.com essay from 2005)

I must confess that...wait a minute. Why confess? "Star Wars" was a part of my life from 1977 to 1983. I collected the numerous action figures, the ships, the Topps collectible cards, the posters, the bedsheets, etc. I want to say that Martin Scorsese, Ingmar Bergman and Akira Kurosawa were the backbone of my collective filmic childhood, but why lie about it? When I first saw "Star Wars" in 1977, it not only shaped and framed my childhood - it pretty much represented it. When I finally saw "Return of the Jedi" in 1983, it was pretty much over me. The Star Wars universe came to a close and I already discovered Ingmar Bergman and Luis Bunuel at the now defunct Biograph in New York. Besides, I have always been a bigger Indiana Jones fan than a Luke Skywalker fan.

Therefore, to hear complaints over the past decade from the elitist film snobs on the Internet and abroad that Lucas is responsible for the declining quality of American cinema, the dumbing-down of cinematic blockbusters, offends me because he is not responsible for making films dumber. The filmmakers who decided to copy Lucas's formula (which was already borrowed from Tolkien and Kurosawa, to name a couple of influences) and create their own versions of sci-fi spectaculars are partly to blame, as is the audience who clamored for pure entertainment and nothing more.

But let's go back to 1977 for a moment. "Star Wars" was more than just a movie - it was an event. It transcended everything we thought was fun about movies. It was also the first true blockbuster that became a powerhouse of a phenomenon, more so than even "The Wizard of Oz" or "Jaws," the first official blockbuster minus the merchandising. Even those who disliked George Lucas's first space opera opus would be remiss if they didn't admit they knew who Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Princess Leia and Obi-Wan Kenobi were. For better or worse, thanks to intense marketing and merchandising, "Star Wars" was a ubiquitous hit. It also became the controversial name of a missile program spearheaded by the late former President Reagan. And to no one's surprise, the film spawned two sequels, a prequel trilogy and several rip-offs. ("Ice Pirates," anyone?)

But something else happened in 1977. At a time when the country was just getting over Vietnam and Watergate, socially conscious Hollywood films became something of a hindrance at the box-office - why spend millions on an independent director's personal vision when you could have mega-escapist entertainment instead that would satisfy the child in all of us? Of course, George Lucas was already an independent filmmaker prior to "Star Wars." He scored a direct hit with "American Graffitti" and failed to attract an audience with one of his most profound, experimental films, "THX-1138." "Star Wars" was seen as a gamble, and yet it is a personal vision by Lucas. The difference was that it was a populist vision, one that could attract the mainstream. It was about the old-fashioned ideals of good and evil. It was the world we could dream of, not an existential vision where good and evil were difficult to separate. No, Lucas made an updated, operatic version of the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon Republic serials of yesteryear. Unfortunately, this meant the demise of the New School of Thought as perpetrated by distinct directors such as Martin Scorsese, William Friedkin, Francis Ford Coppola, Hal Ashby, John Milius and many more - directors who sought to inform us with their personal visions of the corrupt world they live in. By the time the grand folly that destroyed a studio arrived, Michael Cimino's highly uneven yet beautiful dusty film "Heaven's Gate," it was the end of the independent vision backed by Hollywood. How ironic that Lucas financed his own "Star Wars" movies and made them the way he saw fit with the help of distributor Twentieth Century Fox. Many kill for financial control - Orson Welles suffered seeking it - and so Lucas was, by his own admission as self-financier, an independent film director.

So did George Lucas destroy cinema? I wouldn't say that is correct - cinema may be dying to some (an erroneous suggestion when you consider there are still some great films made - "American Hustle" is a masterpiece) but it is not destroyed. There's nothing inherently wrong with an astoundingly entertaining movie like "Star Wars" but there is more to film than to just entertain. The audience fell for the idea that only escapism should inform their Friday night experience, not socially relevant films or Scorsesean outlooks on the mean streets of New York. No, since the advent of "Star Wars," the audience got hooked on happy endings, explosions in THX sound format, bullets ripping through the air while Stallone or Schwarzenegger flexed their muscles and bared their chests, simple, uncomplicated romances, and so on. These statutes of limitations informed the 1980's and went on through the politically correct 1990's. The audiences got spoiled - a happy ending for "Pretty Woman" was accepted, a dark ending wouldn't have been. Bruce Willis fought terrorists and saved his wife and his marriage in the process as John McClane in the "Die Hard" series. Just when you thought that 1994's groundbreaking "Pulp Fiction" would reawaken the action film genre to new heights by infusing it with noirish attitudes, we got the same old song the following year with "Die Hard With a Vengeance" and a slew of Steven Seagal flicks. Summer action blockbusters continued (don't forget director Michael Bay and the return of James Bond as Pierce Brosnan and more recently Daniel Craig), comedies leveled their humor with gross gags such as "There's Something About Mary" and "Austin Powers," and teenagers flocked to "Scream" and the numerous knockoffs as well as "American Pie" and their own kin. Are we still blaming Lucas? Possibly, but cinema is not gone.

And then came 1999's "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace," which was a huge success and a major disappointment for fans. Lucas created such a backlash with the return to his popular universe that it was assumed to be the biggest disappointment in cinema history (Didn't "Scarlett," the TV sequel to "Gone With the Wind," qualify as a bigger dud?) Never mind the much maligned Jar-Jar-Binks character, considered the biggest and most inexcusable flaw in the film, or a young Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker screaming "Yippee!" every two seconds or the appearance of far too solemn Jedi Knights, including Samuel L. Jackson as the wise Mace Windu, or the occasional creature in Tatooine that would fart or step on feces. "Phantom Menace" was seen as troubling because fans and presumably audiences were expecting a state of nirvana that would return them to 1977. Except this was 1999 and perhaps many of us who were tots in the 70's outgrew "Star Wars" - we all became adults since those days and wouldn't have expected Lucas to make this universe so new and groundbreaking all over again. Of course, Han Solo, Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker didn't return because the new movies were prequels - our favorite characters weren't even born yet! Somehow, the audacious sight of seeing Yoda holding a lightsaber or the knowledge that Darth Vader built C3PO or that the future Vader was slightly wimpy was considered sacrilegious. And I thought the Ewoks were offensively inane and that Harrison Ford looked quite stoned in "Return of the Jedi." I don't think I am alone in saying that "The Empire Strikes Back" is not only the greatest "Star Wars" film ever, but also one of the finest action-adventure films ever made. Obviously, those who held the original trilogy (Episodes 4, 5 and 6) as the Holy Trilogy were not going to have their high expectations met in any regard.

Special-effect fantasies set in space have multiplied since the original "Star Wars," both on television and in theatres. From TV's "Battlestar Galactica" to movies like "Stargate" and "Alien" and beyond, almost every year has spawned numerous sci-fi space operas, sci-fi adventures and sci-fi dramas. For every new Star Trek series and "Star Trek" sequel, there's been "Blade Runner," "Dark City," "Independence Day," "I, Robot," "Minority Report," "Terminator" franchise, "Moonraker" (the only Bond film set in space), heck, even "The Matrix" trilogy. Aliens of all sizes and shapes have appeared on screen and CGI technology has sparked the illusion of newer and denser worlds. How the hell can "Star Wars" compete with all that except to utilize what has already been deemed old-hat? CGI effects don't have the grandeur or sense of nightmarish intensity that handmade, practical sets do - "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is an exception.

Many erroneously assumed that "Star Wars" worked because of the special-effects. Others will contend that the characters were what made it so memorable. And so to accuse the new "Star Wars" films of having stilted dialogue, wooden characterizations and too much (or too little) plot is to forget that the original film trilogy is no less guilty of the same charges. The reviled "Phantom Menace" spends its time developing its origins of Anakin Skywalker and some of it is pure fun to watch, including the Pod Race. "Attack of the Clones" spends time on the developing romance between Anakin and former Princess Amidala. I suppose that was too dull a romance for many, preferring action, spectacle and last-minute rescue attempts every two minutes. Amazing that the original "Star Wars: Episode IV" was considered too fast-paced in 1977 - now, it is a model of narrative storytelling (Reportedly, the fantastic "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is even taught at film universities). MTV and remote controls have had an adverse effect on populist cinema, not George Lucas.

I like the prequel trilogy, and consider "Episode III" to be the best damn "Star Wars" film since "The Empire Strikes Back." I think George Lucas is a fine filmmaker and hope he makes those experimental films he's been planning all along. "Star Wars" will never go away and Lucas may fiddle and tinker with his original trilogy until the day he dies, though that may be tough to do since Disney now owns all the rights. But he is no destroyer of cinema - someone who embraces it shouldn't be charged with destroying it. We can't blame him for the remakes of "Dukes of Hazzard," "Amityville Horror," "Guess Who," "The Honeymooners," "Poltergeist" and the rash of wannabe brainless blockbusters, can we? (We can blame him for "Howard the Duck.") We shouldn't blame him for unwarranted happy endings and the dumbing-down of cinema, should we? No, the audience is to blame and now, in 2015, there is some insatiable need for superheroes and more remakes. Even Schwarzenegger and Stallone, our former action heavyweights, are having a tough time finding an audience nowadays, and that is saying something. For better or worse, Scorsese, Friedkin, Bogdanovich and many other 70's brats are thankfully still working in the Hollywood industry. I've learned that there's more to life than "Star Wars" - as of now, it is more nostalgia for me than anything else. It might be for George Lucas as well.

Check your fun at the door with prehistoric beasties

JURASSIC WORLD (2015)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

1993's "Jurassic Park" was a tremendous thrill ride of a movie, a literal walk in the park with dinosaurs - some friendly, some not so friendly. What also made the movie were the colorful characters, a motley crew of scientists who saw this park as a troubling future capitalist venture. I recall the chaos theory mathematician, Dr. Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), arguing about the ethics of bringing back dinosaurs to the late Richard Attenborough's Dr. Hammond - Sam Neill and Laura Dern were on hand as paleontologists who were in agreement with Malcolm. Granted, Michael Crichton's book was more in-depth and brutal but the original film had the humor and fright factor down pat. Sequels came and went, though Spielberg's own "The Lost World" was a decent flick with an ecological theme of preserving the dinos' habitat. The third film, the less said the better. This new "Jurassic World" has no real distinction or novelty and the surprise is that, though superior to the third film, it has little fright value and almost no sense of humor.

Jurassic World is the literal name of a fully functioning theme park with real, live dinosaurs. The theme park is on an island, Isla Nublar, the very same Costa Rican one from the first film. Bryce Dallas Howard is Claire Dearing who is on board this dino theme park as its operations manager, hungering to fulfill the audience's demands for bigger, louder dinosaurs! Apparently, she casually mentions a poll that people attending this park don't want the same old, same old. This might be the screenwriters' (five of them, this time) own ironic commentary on audiences that attend this movie - bigger and louder don't necessarily mean better. But these are real dinosaurs in the world of this movie - how much better can it be than to see creatures from a prehistoric time. Naturally, the genetics lab has bred a new kind of dinosaur, part raptor and part T-Rex, called the Indominus Rex. It is a ferocious 50-foot creature that is smarter than most humans. The raptors are also smarter and quicker yet they can be tamed, thanks to Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) who is capable of holding them at bay.

Naturally, things go awry at Jurassic World. Indominus Rex runs loose around the park, and has camouflaging capabilities. Pterosaurs break free and fly from their own domed enclosure, snatching up the park's customers and flinging them in the air. There is also a Mosasaurus, an aquatic prehistoric lizard that eats a shark for the spectators, sort of a bloodthirsty take on the Orca. Interestingly, there is not as much dino action as you might think. We are mostly saddled with Chris Pratt's rather bland heroic gestures and his zero rapport with Bryce Dallas Howard - both deserve better scripts. There are secondary and tertiary characters introduced who give us a little background and off they go before some get chomped by raptors and such. The most fascinating character is Vincent D'Onofrio as Vic Hoskins, the villainous head of security operations who was hoping for the shite to hit the fan. Why? Military applications of raptors in a time of war, that is why. Sadly, his character's own dinos-in-the-military ideas are never explained. When one scene shows the terror of these Pterosaurs wrecking havoc, all he can do is stand back and smile. Huh? B.D. Wong is also back, the only returnee from the original "Jurassic Park" series, as the geneticist who has conspired to create a monster with "more teeth." Also on board for dino bait are Claire's nephews who mistakenly travel in a gyrosphere (a sphere-shaped ride on wheels) through the thick of the jungle despite the red alerts.

The main flaw is that director Colin Trevorrow (who is no Steven Spielberg) doesn't offer much in the way of suspense or genuine thrills, even for a silly monster movie. The movie coasts along but it has no real momentum and no sequence is ever shaped well enough to induce the heebie-jeebies. Spielberg could craft one of these in his sleep but he also gave you goosebumps and real terror. Not one scene in this film comes a tenth close to the T-Rex rampage from the original. Pauline Kael once said it best about Spielberg - "Great Spielberg action is so brilliant it spooks you." "Jurassic World" doesn't have enough jeopardy, inspire much awe or wonder, and has no real moral dilemmas about the existence of a theme park even on the most rudimentary level - basically no real ideas at all. It is not just a movie where you check your brain at the door. It is a check-your-fun-at-the-door type movie too.   

Surveillance on Abbie Hoffman

STEAL THIS MOVIE (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2001)

Abbie Hoffman or his Yippie days back in the counterculture era of the 1960's must have been far more troubling and chaotic than the simplistic treatment provided in this film. If it were not for two key performances by Vincent D'Onofrio and Janeane Garofalo, I would have dismissed "Steal this Movie" as a foolhardy and empty film biography.

D'Onofrio is Abbie Hoffman, the imaginative, creative political force of the 60's who began as a civil rights activist in the South and worked his way into the anti-war movement, with particular attention paid to the Vietnam War and his staunch defense against it displayed in front of the Washington Monument. He made headlines for conjuring up absurd events such as the levitation of the Pentagon or his throwing dollar bills at New York Stock Exchange workers. It was performance theater designed to provoke a response in the population about America's capitalist system.

None of this would mean much unless we saw the man behind the imagination. Hoffman robs a bus in ridiculous Western attire and meets Anita (Janeane Garofalo), who comes to his "Free Store" to get back her stolen jacket. She is intrigued and fascinated by him, and they eventually get married and have a son. However, J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon are after Hoffman and invade his privacy with FBI surveillance. It gets so hot that Hoffman leaves his family and goes underground, finally giving an interview in the late 1970's and exhibiting a bipolar disorder. He also meets and falls in love with Johanna Lawrenson (Jeanne Tripplehorn), and Anita eventually grows to accept the double life Abbie has lead.

"Steal This Movie" has a fragmented narrative and visual style, thanks to the tired cliche of the reporter interviewing the subject about his past victories and losses. This cliche began with "Citizen Kane" and has been used in everything from "Lenny" to "Chaplin" and beyond. It may allow for some experimentation with narrative but it can also give the idea that we are merely watching glimpses of the biographical subject without getting too close. That is what happens with "Steal This Movie," which glides from one event to the other giving it a disconnected flow - it is like watching a "Biography" segment complete with badly used, pseudo voice-overs from Nixon and Hoover.

D'Onofrio is a revelation as he gives a beautifully modulated performance of extreme highs and lows, showcasing Hoffman's improvisational delivery in nearly everything he does yet also showing a man living in paranoia and fear about his family, friends and foes and his insular life. Janeane Garofalo also gets a chance to develop an empathetic and compassionate side to Anita, who also has her doubts about Hoffman's other lover and his insularity yet she deeply loves him.

"Steal This Movie" is nothing extraordinary and the film limits Hoffman's struggle and paranoia to that of a mere outcast, a shadow of the man who made people listen to his view on the world. Still, the 60's scene is thrillingly depicted (complete with typical tunes in the soundtrack) and there are shades throughout of Oliver Stone's "Born on the Fourth of July" in its view of how the young revolutionaries were not always taken seriously by the conservatives. The only difference is that everyone paid attention to Abbie Hoffman.

Toothless Hollywood lyricism

STATE AND MAIN (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"State and Main" is smart, funny and lyrical and one wishes it were so much more. Here's a movie that has a great idea - using a Rockwellian small town as the setting for a Hollywood movie - and it comes up short in fulfilling expectations. It's as if writer-director David Mamet felt it was enough to skewer the Hollywood system - a business that has been skewered to death.

Film director Walt Price (William H. Macy) has arrived with his film crew in Waterford, Vermont to film their latest project, "The Old Mill." Problems being to surface when the old mill itself is discovered to have burnt down thirty years ago. The lead actress, Claire Wellesly (Sarah Jessica Parker), refuses to do a nude scene unless she is paid an additional 800,000 dollars. The laid-back screenwriter, Joseph White (Philip Seymour Hoffman), has writer's block, particularly since he needs to change the setting of the movie. He gets some help from a local bookstore owner, Ann Black (Rebecca Pidgeon), who falls in love with him and keeps saying to other locals, "Go Husskies!" And to top it all off, the leading actor Bob Barrenger (Alec Baldwin) has a predilection for underage girls.

"State and Main" focuses on the complications that ensue in shooting a film in a small town. My favorite moment is when the hot-headed producer (David Paymer) tells Walt that he will have to do a product placement of an Internet company. "How can we do that when the story is set in 1895?," asks Walt. The payoff is finally delivered and I was all smiles when the solution was shown. The problem is that I feel Mamet did not focus as much on his targets as he should have. He neither stays long enough on the Hollywood satire or on the negotiations and deals that a film crew has to make with the locals and with the mayor (Charles Durning). A great scene could have developed with the mayor and his wife as they anxiously wait for Walt and Bob to arrive for dinner - the mayor's wife went so far as to have their wallpaper changed for the event. But there is no payoff and Mamet refuses to have any payoffs in the film. Some are more subtle than others but the whole film feels undernourished as a result.

The best subplot of the film deals with the sensible, morally correct Joseph and his developing romance with Ann. Joseph would rather spend time with Ann than work on the script. There is one moment that fuses all the elements of satire and comic relief perfectly. Joseph and Ann get locked out of the bookstore. It is raining. Joseph tries to kiss Ann but is interrupted by the local sheriff. The sheriff offers Ann an umbrella and to walk her home. Joseph is left alone at the store in the rain. It is as evocative of how a small town operates as anything I've seen in recent years. Simple lives in a simple existence where simple folks simply help others in need.

If "State and Main" had stuck to the notion of how a Hollywood film crew is out of place in a small town that feels trapped in a time warp, it could have been a winner. As it is, the film made me smile throughout and I enjoyed all the asides tossed at Hollywood. The performances are superb, as always in a Mamet film. But there are no real payoffs and the film never quite makes it as a truly biting farce or comedy. It flows smoothly and it is lyrical but it lacks weight.

Furiosa is the Road Warrior

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD (2015)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Rebooting the pumped-up and hallucinatory apocalyptic power of the "Mad Max" films of thirty years ago might seem like a risky venture, especially when Mel Gibson is no longer on board as the one and only Road Warrior. Still, there is good news for Mad Max fans because "Fury Road" is a deranged, even more apocalyptic and thunderously emotional film in the series that can stand on its own two dirty, muddy feet as the finest action film in many years. It easily outclasses "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and comes very, very close to the solemnity of the masterful "The Road Warrior."

The chameleonic actor Tom Hardy is Max, the former cop who became a dust bowl avenger of a post-nuclear apocalyptic era where everyone is a scavenger for gas and water. In this story, he is held prisoner by the War Boys, an army of bald, pale-faced, sickly men who are led by Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne, formerly Toecutter in the original "Mad Max" film from 1979), a figure of torment who needs an elaborate breathing apparatus just to speak to the poor people of the desert. Joe even tells the crowd of what appears to be thousands that if they want water, they better not get addicted to it - then he releases the levers and gives them what they want in desperation albeit in short triple gallon spurts. Meanwhile, one-armed Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron - simply amazing) is sent to acquire gas but then decides to veer off-course - her plan is to go to the Green Place, her home, along with five other women impregnated by Joe. Joe is mad as hell and wants his women and their babies. Furiosa is no less angry herself, and Max simply tags along.

 Director George Miller (who helmed the first three "Mad Max" films) doesn't disappoint in terms of white-knuckled action scenes that astound and terrify at the same time. The movie doesn't just add chases on the road - you are immersed in them and feel we are riding along with everyone else at breakneck speeds. I saw the film in 3-D and I can say that it enhances the experience of the thrill of the chase and the debris of broken vehicles thrust in your face. Helping to make the chases fresh, one vehicle carries drummers and a guitarist whose own guitar shoots flames! But Miller has deeper issues than enthralling the audience with the visceral - he never forgets to stay close to the characters so we can feel we are in a soulful action movie, not in the latest cartoonish gimmicks of a "Fast and Furious" sequel. Furiosa is our female-empowered Road Warrior with great aim and even greater driving skills at handling a rig the size of two eighteen wheelers (at one point, Max gives her the gun to shoot to kill the imposing marauders in the distance). Furiosa also wishes for redemption, to get away from a blood-soaked desert world where sand is all there is between her and her weaponry. She is strong, tough, resilient and carries a vulnerable side particularly with her prosthetic arm. She is a lone warrior on a mission to rediscover her humanity. It is an awe-inspiring breakthrough for Theron, proving her worth as the real hero of the movie.


If there is one glaring though hardly destructive flaw in "Mad Max: Fury Road," it is the casting of Tom Hardy as Mad Max. His character is virtually a catatonic creation who wears a muzzle for a while before being rescued by Furiosa and reluctantly engaging in battle. Hardy is not a bad choice to play Max but not the most fitting - he speaks more in the opening narration than in the entirety of the film. Missing in action is the charismatic, fiery presence of Mel Gibson who played Max as someone who had seen it all and showed little fear. Hardy's Max is a mute and somewhat expressionless Road Warrior and is given little to do besides being Furiosa's second banana. Males have been up in arms over this, that is Furiosa being practically the main lead in the movie, but I can't quibble - women don't get stalwart roles like this in the silver screen often. As I said, Hardy might be catatonic...but he is not boring.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" is a beautifully dusty, roughly hewn and inspired action movie and it is an overpowering assault on the senses. The feeling of desperation and despair in this vast wasteland is felt in every frame. Every flying bullet, spear, arrow and fiery projectile is felt - when people die, we feel the loss and the impact. What it also conveys is that there is still some measure of hope and solace from greedy dictators who use humans as cattle to feed and manipulate. The odd thing about this "Mad Max" film is that gas and water are not the necessities this time (though they are sorely needed) - breeding healthy human babies with no deformities is the hope from the enemy. Furiosa just wants solace. Max wants to go his own way. And we are caught in the middle of one of the most imaginative action films in history.