Can't make new memories

MEMENTO (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally reviewed in 2001

"I can't make new memories. Everything fades, nothing sticks. By the time we finish this conversation I won't remember how it started, and the next time I see you I won't know that I've ever met you before." - Leonard.

Thus, the above quotation says it all for "Memento," one of the most electrifying of all postmodern noir thrillers in years. Whereas "Run Lola Run" and "Pulp Fiction" reveled in irony, hipness and fractured timelines to tell their stories, "Memento" is a more eager return to what makes noir what it is - the purely existential. Martin Scorsese dared to go through such existential leaps minus the irony in "Bringing Out the Dead" as did Sean Penn in the brilliant "The Pledge." "Memento," though, will be remembered as the most disorienting and fatalistic of the new century, linking to the most frightening ordeal man could ever face, the inability to make new memories.

Such is the case with Leonard (Guy Pearce), a former insurance claims investigator who suffers from a rare disorder defined as "anterior grade memory loss" (also known as Korsokoff's syndrome). You see, Leonard can't make new memories and the only way he can remember anything is by writing it down or by tattooing his body with written messages. After a few minutes, if he fails to write down important information or clues (usually on a handy Polaroid he shoots of any person he meets), he will forget as if the incident had never occurred.

At the beginning of the film, Leonard kills an unarmed man named Teddy (Joe Pantoliano). Teddy's murder seems cold-blooded and, like most noir films that deal with a central narrator (that being Leonard), we expect flashbacks to see what led up to this event. A strange thing happens, though, in "Memento." Rather than seeing typical flashbacks in a conventional, linear fashion, the story is told backwards thus the ending of the film is really the beginning and the beginning of the film is really the ending. Now the audience is faced with the daunting task of keeping all the facts straight in their minds as the events unfold on screen. I did not find it daunting as much as challenging and this Harold Pinter approach serves the purpose of the film.

It would not be fair to reveal much of "Memento" because the thrill of the film is in its surprise factor. This much can be said about the plot: Leonard is investigating the death of his wife by some character named "John G." His investigation leads to a sour, sweetly morose barmaid, Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), who has gone through a similar loss and can help him out of pity. Naturally, as the film regresses, we learn Natalie is not quite the sour, kind woman we thought she was - your typical femme fatale. Then there's Teddy, the smiling cop or drug dealer (depending on your interpretation) who may be trying to help Leonard or may be trying to kill him. Add to the mix a local drug dealer, Leonard's memory of Sammy Jankis who supposedly suffered similar memory loss (and was part of Leonard's insurance claims), and constant betrayals and backstabbing ploys. There is also a motel clerk who is nonplussed to learn that Leonard never remembers any conversation they have had, and thus tries to jokingly cheat Leonard out of a better motel room. No one is ever what they seem in this morally ambiguous universe and by structuring the film backwards, we learn the evolution of each character through Leonard's point-of-view. This also serves a more finite attraction: when we learn new information about a character as the film regresses, we realize the character's prior behavior and begin to see that Leonard may have the wrong idea or wrong motive for his later actions. This nonlinear breakdown of the story will no doubt lead to further viewings just to keep the characters straight.

"Memento" has a great, meaty story but if it were not for the beautifully restrained performances from the cast, the film would not work the same way. Guy Pearce is fierce and alive in every scene he is in. He is vulnerable and yet impulsive, no doubt due to his constant memory loss. He is not quite your typical hero, more of a disillusioned antihero. In a sense, Pearce undergoes a rather strange dilemma - if he does not remember what a person had done to him, he can just easily hurt the person who may have tried to help him. The Polaroids and the tattoos are messages that could lead to dangerous avenues if he is not quick enough to jot down finite details. All he does remember is that he has a condition (though that often escapes him as well) and he knows his wife was raped and murdered and he is aware of his former job. But as the film comes to a surprisingly fatalistic finish, we also sense that Leonard may have mixed up certain facts or perhaps he is in denial about his own mysterious past. Pearce brings Leonard to life in such an intoxicating manner that he becomes something of a human mine - don't step on him or you will explode.

Carrie-Anne Moss gives her first truly great performance here as the mysterious, duplicitous Natalie, exuding both toughness and sincerity with equal aplomb. She has a memorably frightening moment where she takes advantage of Leonard's condition and taunts him. Joe Pantoliano (who co-starred with Moss in "The Matrix") gives one of his funniest, quixotic performances in years as Teddy, and his character remains as much an enigma as Leonard does. Teddy may seem trustworthy but could he be using Leonard as well?

Harold Pinter's "Betrayal" was a tale of divorce told backwards and probably the first to use such a complicated device. There was also the hilarious "Seinfeld" episode that was told backwards and succeeded in delivering its punchlines with more gusto than usual. But "Memento" uses a gimmicky device to its advantage. We, the audience, only know as much information as Leonard knows thus his short-term memory loss is accentuated by telling the story backwards, especially since he can't make new memories. When Leonard is unsure of something, so are we. When he is disoriented, so are we. It is rare for a noir tale like this to make us feel the internal anxieties and fears of its main character. Watching "Memento" is like enduring an endless nightmare where our memory is a constant illusion in search of the truth. In the case of Leonard, his search for the truth may be fruitless and all we are left with are mementos to remind us of his own journey.

Free from the Die Hard reins

16 BLOCKS (2006)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2007)

Bruce Willis is one of our most unsung actors of the last twenty years. What he does is on screen is remarkable, remarkable for his sense of timing and his nuances. Since "Die Hard," he's only gotten better and wiser with his pick of roles. Gone is the smirking, wisecracking hero we were once accustomed to, back in the heyday of "Moonlighting" and "Die Hard." In "16 Blocks," he gives a truly magnificent performance as a tired, glum cop, a cliched character to be sure, but he invests it with enough subtlety and flair, not to mention grace and humanity, that it is probably close to the best work he's ever done.

At the beginning of the film, we are already sure this is no John McClane. Willis is Jack Mosley, an alcoholic veteran cop with a five o'clock shadow and a game leg. He visits the latest crime scene where cocaine sits on a table, a couple of corpses litter the floors, and all Jack wants is another drink. Nothing new for Jack, nothing worth sitting around for, at least until the forensic team arrives. His new job is to take a whining witness, Eddie Bunker (Mos Def), to a grand jury hearing which happens to be 16 blocks away from the police station. Jack takes the job reluctantly, stops at a liquor store and all hell breaks loose. You see Mr. Bunker was a witness to a murder committed by corrupt cops, prominently lead by the police chief Nugent (tough-as-nails performance by David Morse, who's been playing bad guys for as long as I can remember).

"16 Blocks" is clearly a run-of-the-mill thriller and, admittedly, you do not need a sixth sense to see where it is going. All the cliches are intact, and all the payoff scenes sputter as expected. Under the guidance of Bruce Willis, Mos Def and director Richard Donner, they at least give it a lift above the norm. The film primarily works as a character study with more dialogue than usual for this sort of thing (this may be an intentional hark back to the police thrillers of the late 60's and early 70's). Willis embodies a broken man, both physically and emotionally, who may be tired of playing by the immoral ethics of his police department. Mos Def shows a comical side to his caffeinated Eddie, who only hopes to stay alive long enough to open a bakery in Seattle! And director Richard Donner wisely infuses enough interest in his characters to make a potentially mediocre movie more exciting and suspenseful than it has any right to be.

Willis clearly makes the movie his own. He has come a long way since "Die Hard," and I am tempted to say that his Jack Mosley character works so well that it proves Willis is one of our best character actors. A beaten down cop like this played with such sincerity almost makes you wish Willis would resist a new "Die Hard" sequel.

Lifetime movie inspired by true story

A DEADLY ADOPTION (2015)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The last thing I ever expected Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig to make was a full 2-hour parody of a Lifetime movie...for Lifetime! Well, sort of a parody...let's say that the joke is a one-joke movie but boy is the joke funny. It plays it absolutely straight as it should.

Will Ferrell is Robert, a best-selling author of financial responsibility books, living with his wife and child in a placid lake house. Kristen Wiig is Sarah, the wife, who is shown as pregnant in the opening scenes. She foolishly heads to the dock and is ready to go boating when she slips and falls in the lake, in the kind of slow-motion scene that always looks absurd in any of those movies. Here, it is looks doubly absurd with Ferrell running after her in slow-motion. Years pass with Ferrell always seated on a bench overlooking the dock. Sometimes, he opens the drawer to his desk and, voila, a tempting bottle of wine is inside though he has been on the wagon. Wiig meanwhile maintains an organic food stand where her products sell through the roof. There is also their diabetic daughter who Ferrell is far too overprotective of. All seems well until a young brunette, Bridgette (Jessica Lowndes), becomes the new surrogate mother to their family. Yep, she's trouble from the start and the rest of you can figure out what happens next.

"A Deadly Adoption" is a complete farce but it is played with such a minimum of forced exaggeration that it works in spite of itself. Even the over-the-top shenanigans including the surrogate mother, who has financial ambitions and is not what she seems, a kidnapping and then another of one those slo-mo climaxes show how forced these events can be played in these TV movies. Ferrell and Wiig make a sweet married couple and his own past indiscretions play out hilariously, particularly flashbacks to Ferrell's book tours. What makes the movie sing is that Ferrell and Wiig make one smile at every instance that they utter banal dialogue. Even Jessica Lowndes, who at first is seemingly seducing Ferrell, turns out to be an amoral money-grubber - the movie shifts Bridgette's character with far too many shifts. By the end of the film, she is literally a second cousin to Alex from "Fatal Attraction." Lowndes plays the ridiculous surrogate mother even straighter than the star leads, an accomplishment considering we never know who she is or her ultimate goal - the screenwriters are at fault and purposely so.

"A Deadly Adoption" is purposely unbelievable and as melodramatic as one can imagine - I am sure the Lifetime network sees the self-awareness as a criticism of sorts. You won't believe a moment of "A Deadly Adoption"...and you are not meant to. 

Nowhere to Run, nowhere to hide

THE BIG CLOCK (1948) and NO WAY OUT (1987): 

NOIR COMPANIONS CUT FROM A DIFFERENT CLOTH

By Jerry Saravia

Remakes are in such ubiquity nowadays that it is rare to see one that enhances its original incarnation. 1987's "No Way Out" is one of those that succeeded admirably, a deeper, deeply suspenseful and outright knockout of a thriller that delivers much more panic and fatalistic touches than its predecessor. 1948's "The Big Clock" would be the original template which "No Way Out" borrowed, a film noir thriller that plays fast and loose with its noirish trappings with delightful coincidences and a sunnier finish. "No Way Out," however, is the true noir (though advertised as a thriller) with a slightly bleaker outlook.

1948's "The Big Clock" (based on Kenneth Fearing's novel) has Ray Milland as George Stroud, a crime reporter and editor-in-chief for Crimeways Magazine, who has a special knack for catching criminals. The repugnant Earl Janoth (Charles Laughton) is the newspaper tycoon who owns Janoth Publications, which is the home for Crimeways. Stroud deservedly expects to go on vacation with his wife (Maureen O'Sullivan) to West Virginia yet the ever tyrannical Earl expects Stroud's total commitment to the magazine. Stroud is abruptly fired and spends his time at a bar with Pauline (Rita Johnson), Earl's mistress, who wants to conspire with Stroud to blackmail his former boss. One thing leads to another when Earl has his rendezvous with Pauline and kills her. Stroud doesn't realize what is happening until late, and then he is assigned to find the killer by Janoth! Since Stroud went about town with Pauline at various clubs and shops, witnesses come forward to identity Pauline's date. Meanwhile, there are reparations to be made with Stroud's long-suffering wife and delayed vacations.

1987's "No Way Out" is a whole other affair, a political thriller with not much politics but plenty of thrills in a setting far removed from the publishing world. Kevin Costner (in clearly the best role of his career) is Commander Farrell, a Navy Lieutenant with a background in intelligence. He is also something of a hero after a hazardous boat rescue. Farrell is selected as liaison for Secretary of Defense Brice (Gene Hackman) to investigate the proposed project of a phantom sub. Unfortunately, such project investigations come to a halt when Brice accidentally kills his mistress (Sean Young, an animated actress early in her career) and blames it on Yuri, a Russian mole working in the Pentagon. Farrell has been assigned to find Yuri except he has also had an affair with the same woman! To make matters complicated, witnesses to Farrell's romantic getaways with Susan are coming forward, and there is the matter of Brice's top assistant, Scott Pritchard (Will Patton), who has assassins on hand to terminate Yuri and anyone associated with the mole.

If I have a preference between the two films, it would be "No Way Out" because its dependence on the machinations of its plot do not overwhelm the characters' dilemmas. Laughton's Janoth expresses no remorse over the death of his mistress, and consequently neither does Stroud who is only friends with the mistress - he is not carrying out an affair. In contrast, Hackman's Brice expresses guilt and shame over the killing. Farrell was deeply in love with the mistress and can't handle losing her (though the final twist brings up a few more questions about his devotion to the woman). "No Way Out" also ends with a touch of fatalism, imbuing its narrative with ambiguity over Farrell's role in the Pentagon and some measure of sympathy for Brice and his assistant, whose handling of certain matters is handled by assassins. Laughton's Janoth is a fascinating, repulsive creature but it is hard to care about his plight. Milland's Stroud just wants to protect his hide and seems to be a good man overall, in way over his head.

The biggest difference between "The Big Clock" and "No Way Out" is the former's sense of humor - it is practically a fast-paced screwball comedy with Hawksian overtones (not to mention the use of the witty Elsa Lanchester as a wacky painter). The supporting cast in "The Big Clock" is more colorful but the ones in "No Way Out" are far more grounded, more realistic (it is hard to forget George Dzundza's wheelchair-bound computer expert who is sympathetic yet unsure of Farrell's seeming paranoia). "The Big Clock" is a fun suspense yarn with a shocking climax. "No Way Out" is far more entertaining with an even more shocking climax yet its roots are firmly planted in the world of noir. Let's say Milland's Stroud escapes any sort of doomed fate. Costner's Farrell faces an ambiguous future - one that may result in getting out of the United States altogether. He's wracked with guilt over the loss of a loved one, something conspicuously missing from "The Big Clock." 

Obsessive over the New York Giants

BIG FAN (2009)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Maybe because I've known types like Paul Aufiero, I can safely say that with obsessions, there is some semblance of a life not colored only by obsession. In the film "Big Fan," Paul is all about obsession, obsession with the New York Giants and fictional Giant linebacker Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm). He is so obsessed by Quantrell that Paul sleeps with a poster hanging over his bed. But is there anything more to Paul besides being a passionately avid New York Giants fan? I am afraid not.

Paul is a 36-year-old Staten Island man living with his mother and working at a day job where he mans the booth at a parking garage. Paul's free time is spent watching the Giants play, including watching them on a TV outside the Giants stadium with his friend, Sal (Kevin Corrigan), since they can't afford the tickets inside. He also prepares by writing in his notebook what he will say about the Giants' game strategies or comments on the players to a late-night talk radio program called "The Zone," which he calls nightly.

Unfortunately, there is not much more to Paul. He masturbates almost every night and he hates his nagging mother and his brother, who is an ambulance chaser. He refuses to date, denies job offers from his relatives, essentially denies any ability afforded to him to move forward. Paul only loves the Giants and his friend, Sal, though one wonders what sort of life Sal has that he hangs out with Paul.

One night, Paul and Sal are having pizza and they both spot Paul's idol, Quantrell Bishop. They follow him to some neighborhood where Quantrell may be buying drugs. They further follow Quantrell to a strip joint and this is where Paul makes his move - he tells the football player he's a big fan. Then something happens and a fight breaks out, leaving Paul with almost fatal head injuries. The incident is reported to the press, a detective begins asking questions, and suddenly Paul's private world is exposed.

As written and directed by Robert Siegel (who also wrote the brilliant "The Wrestler"), "Big Fan" is not judgmental of Paul nor does it embrace him. The guy could be termed a loser by most, but that is too easy. However, I can't say there is more to Paul than his obsession and that is where the screenplay falters. Everyone has their obsessions - mine is cinema - but I do engage in other things. When I was single, I went to the movies but mostly solo - I would mostly get together with friends of mine and have dinner and chit-chat. I would go on long walks and exercise, read books, be engaged in world events through the news, etc. Paul is simply a New York Giants fan and it is what he lives for and what causes his downfall. The tragedy may be that Paul never makes the realization - he just doesn't care a lick about anything else. And some of this tested my patience a little.

Comedian Patton Oswalt gives a nuanced, eye-opening performance of mild, Staten Island-ish, almost New Jersey-ish anxiety but the character is still lacking in some inner life, something that would make us care about him beyond his obsession. As I said many times, I do not look to sympathize or like the main character in a film - only to feel myself in their shoes in some way. By contrast, "The Wrestler" was a fully dimensional and exquisite portrait of a lost soul - we saw Mickey Rourke's wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson's ups and downs, his lack of family, his need to be around a stripper, his pain, his sorrow, his guilt. With Paul Aufiero, we see his lack of detachment to anything other than football and his friend. This makes for a purposefully and correctly sad and depressing film, but not necessarily an enriching one.

Female terminator dives headfirst into toilet

TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2003)

Who would've guessed that "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" would be an action-packed, thoroughly exciting entry in the series? Funny, nerve-frying, often supremely entertaining, "Terminator 3" certainly rises to the occasion and is one of the better sequels in quite some time. Still, I am not sure it is a necessity, aside from being a louder B-movie, but it gets the job done.

This time, an older John Connor (played by Nick Stahl, replacing Edward Furlong) is now working construction jobs and living off the grid, bearing in mind an unforeseeable future. Of course, since this is a "Terminator" movie, the future is still quite bleak. Two terminators have been sent from the future, one is the protector and the other a destroyer. The protector is the standard T-model, a titanium steel cyborg (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger), who is not just protecting John this time but also Kathy Brewster (Claire Danes), a future wife of John's and also someone who will work under John's command. The destroyer is a T-X model, or Terminatrix (Kristanna Loken), an advanced liquid terminator prototype whose arms can fire missiles and can be used as blowtorches. Her purpose is to kill John Connor and Kathy, not to mention others who will eventually work under John's command. The problem is that on this day of chaos, a nuclear war is about to happen. "Judgment day was inevitable," says the protective Terminator model. The rest of the movie is like a sci-fi suspense thriller where our heroes have to race against the clock to prevent Judgment Day from happening.

Okay, so for some of you out there, not one word of the previous paragraph will make a lick of sense. So let's backtrack: the first "Terminator" film featured a killer cyborg sent from the future to kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), the future mother of John Connor, the leader of a resistance group against the machines after a nuclear apocalypse. In the second film, two terminators are sent back to kill the young John Connor (Edward Furlong), though the main focus was on Sarah Connor's own determination to stop the inevitable. Naturally, I thought the story was complete and there was nothing more to say. But money talks and Schwarzenegger, who's been in desperate need of a hit, could not say no. So is "Terminator 3" simply a reiteration of the previous films? In some ways, but it is acceptable since we are dealing with time-travel paradoxes where events are always reiterated in some form or another. For example, we get to see Schwarzenegger, in his birthday suit, enter another bar where he asks a male stripper (!) for his clothes. We also get a truck chase that is among the most frenetic in the series, complete with an extended crane that causes so much damage, you'd be surprised if half of the city of L.A. wasn't destroyed. This may not top similar sequences in "Terminator 2" but it comes close. There is also a physical battle between the two terminators, dozens of cyborgs armed with laser weapons, an army base that uses outdated computer systems, Arnie cutting his chest open to remove some explosive device, phrases like "I am back" or "I like your car" uttered by the mentally deficient terminators, computer systems run amok (meaning no cell phone use - how sad), helicopters crashing through walls, an electromagnetic field that liquid terminators may not appreciate, a coffin holding an arsenal of weapons, and so on. Yes, it is all silly to the nth degree, but I can honestly say that it is terrific fun.

Schwarzenegger still knows how to deliver his lines with a capable robotic mentality. Nick Stahl is a nice addition to the series, though his interpretation of John Connor indicates that he's more willing to accept his future than he cares to admit. He has a nice rapport with Claire Danes as the sweet-tempered Kathy Brewster, who of course learns how to fire an automatic rifle. As for Kristanna Loken, she may not have the malice or the fierce presence of Robert Patrick's T-1000 model from the last sequel, but she is definitely not someone you want to mess with either (though feminists may scoff at seeing her thrown into a toilet headfirst).

"Terminator 3" may seem unnecessary and may be too short for some, but it does have believable performances, a feverish pace and a truly astounding finale (some may consider it too much of a downer). Now that the focus is sqaurely on John Connor, I suppose we can expect another sequel. Let's say that the series has been leading to an inevitable conclusion and I will say, inevitably, it is enough.

Terminator 2 is THE END

TERMINATOR 2 SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE END

By Jerry Saravia

 "I knew my character arc was so complete in the first two" - Linda Hamilton on why she turned down 'Terminator 3'

Once James Cameron's thrilling, nonstop action spectacle "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" reached its

action-filled climax and its denouement concerning a friendlier Terminator than the gritty 1984 tech-noir classic that started this whole time-traveling mess in the first place, it was clear that the Terminator's days were over. Skynet, the artificial intelligence computer network that initiated nuclear war, was no more - it had no existence in the future. After the good Terminator finally destroys the lethal T-1000 Terminator (Robert Patrick, our liquid terminator) and then asks the young rascal John Connor to destroy him since a terminator cannot self-terminate, it meant no killer cyborgs in the future, no nuclear war, done. A whole decade later, "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" burst onto to the scene, an unnecessary sequel yet still a fairly decent one with a bleaker outlook. As much as I enjoyed it, it was clearly a cash-in on the first two films and it completely contradicted the second film. (SPOILERS AHEAD for those who have not seen any of these films) Skynet manages to activate a nuclear war after all and as the returning Terminator insists, "It was inevitable." IT WAS? Yeah, to the studios maybe but let's be clear: I think James Cameron always thought that the story was over. There was no more story to tell. (NOTE: "Terminator Salvation" will not be discussed since I have yet to see it.)

Now there is yet another "Terminator" flick called "Terminator Genisys," which director James Cameron has already declared the true third film in the franchise. That may or may not be and my interest was a little piqued when I saw the newest trailer, which definitely let loose a major twist that should not have been so hastily unleashed. But to me, "Terminator 2" was the end. It had a finality to it and it really was more of a continuation, not a traditional cash-grab of a sequel, of Sarah Connor's quest to save her teenage son John Connor (future leader of the resistance against the machines of a post-apocalyptic universe) from the deadly T-1000 terminator. Sarah and John's story made the sequel more of an emotional journey, harkening back to the love story of the original film between Kyle Reese and Sarah (Kyle turned out to be the sire of John Connor, which brought up all sorts of questions). Yes, there are the requisite explosions, astounding action sequences that make your jaw drop and fight scenes that are as awesomely staged as ever (the longer cut of "Terminator 2" is the greater film experience). Without characters to care about, the movie would've been nothing more than catnip for action aficionados who do not care about complex relationships. Linda Hamilton brought a toughness and a touch of post-Ripleyness to her Sarah Connor - her scene in a mental institution where she angrily pronounces the end of the world will make you shiver and get you misty-eyed. Edward Furlong as John Connor is not some weak kid - he is resourceful and proves to his mother he's got the bravery to be a leader. Schwarzenegger is as alert as always as the protector this time, not the killer. And Robert Patrick was the very definition of a killer antagonist - imitating his victims with his chameleonic capabilities and then killing without provocation.

"Terminator 2" set a whole new standard for the post-apocalyptic action picture - it comes up aces in all departments, has eerie, nightmarish scenes of nuclear devastation, and moves at a brisk, unrelenting pace. It just makes no sense for additional sequels to have emerged in its wake.