Ever feel like you are stuck in an airport?

THE TERMINAL (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2004)

I often question overwhelmingly positive opinions about admired filmmakers and actors, particularly a one-two punch team like Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks. Digressing for a moment here, I am a big Martin Scorsese fan. I think he is the greatest American director alive, for the time being. Therefore, I wish I could say that "Gangs of New York," his last major film, was a disappointment, as many found it to be, but I thought it was one of the most powerful epics ever made. And that leads me to Steven Spielberg, a formidable director with a curious desire lately not to over-inflate or pontificate manipulative emotions. And, leaving aside the execrable "1941" and "Hook," Spielberg has not made a single bad film. Every work speaks for itself, from "Saving Private Ryan" to "Catch Me if You Can." Those last two pictures also starred Tom Hanks. These guys never seem to disappoint me but I suppose I was waiting for one of them to fail, just once. Failure is not a bad thing - it just builds character. Still, "The Terminal" is one of the breeziest, most charming comedies in quite some time, and a truly unique marvel thanks to Spielberg and Hanks.

The setting is the JFK International Airport. The man without a country is Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks), just arriving in America from the fictional Krakozia, a Balkan country. Unfortunately, as he arrives at customs, he is denied entrance into America. Basically, he cannot leave the airport! According to Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci), a by-the-book customs official, a military coup has bound Krakozia in a vise - nobody can go or leave from that country. This means that Navorski can only hang about the lounge and wait for the coup to be lifted - he is persona non grata. Dixon hopes Navorski will leave so that INS can take care of him. The Balkan man, however, speaking only a little English and confused of his situation, returns luggage carts to get quarter refunds, applies for a job with every store, sleeps in a decrepit hangar, flirts with a flight attendant, Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), makes friends with a janitor, Gupta (Kumar Pallana), who suspects the Balkan is a spy, and a lovestruck food services carrier (Diego Luna) who hopes Navorksi can help him win the affections of a lovely INS official (Zoe Saldana).

Part of the charm of "The Terminal" is its square focus on Navorski, a man with nothing to lose and one never angry at the prospect of staying at a terminal for 9 months (based on a true story of an Iranian who's been stuck at the Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris since 1988). Navorksi tries to make his stay more comfortable, even having fun at meeting with the INS official every day despite being rejected for a visa with those pesky green forms. And he even gets a construction job at 11 dollars an hour!

A relationship also develops with Amelia that could make or break Navorski. He discovers Amelia is having an affair with a married man, though she has an uncontrollable habit of making dates with men. She is a 20-year employee living out of hotels and a suitcase - in a way, she is as stuck in her predicament as Navorski is. That makes them compatible, to some degree, and they have a mutual understanding of Napoleon Bonaparte and Italian food.

What makes "The Terminal" fly is its grounded simplicity. This movie never intends to makes its laughs obvious, showing Spielberg's penchant for less is infinitely more (a truism that needs more practice). The staging of moments like the initial encounter between Navorski and the temperamental Dixon is assured in its lack of kinetic energy - simple and static with subtle camera moves enhance the mood. This movie doesn't want to bang you over the head with heavy pratfalls or slapstick, though there are a few terrific moments where passengers slip on wet floors while Gupta sits and smiles. Spielberg and Hanks's laid-back persona allows for small comic miracles, all through insinuation and practicality (and this is a nod to the work of Jacques Tati, one who believed in simplicity to evoke laughs). We have seen the cliche of a man who can't comfortable sleep on his bed - I remember the hysterical motions of Jack Nicholson maneuvering himself in a waterbed in "About Schmidt." Hanks does one better as he brings a host of lounge chairs, dismantles certain parts, and makes a nice cozy bed out of it.

There are a few nifty surprises in "The Terminal," though it is not fair to reveal them. Taking cues from Tati's "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" and Charlie Chaplin, "The Terminal" builds its laughs, sentiment, and simplicity through its leading lovable character and its setting. This whole film practically takes place in and around an airport. Spielberg and his crackerjack team make the place not inhospitable but rather inviting in a way. The beauty of it is that Spielberg and Hanks contrive so many gags and so many laughs along the way that you'll forget you're watching the simple tale of a man whose new domicile is an airport.

Footnote: Fans of "The Royal Tenenbaums" will recognize the actor Kumar Pallana, who played Pagoda, Gene Hackman's partner in crime whom he had once stabbed. Pallana describes a similar stabbing in "The Terminal."

Better Dead than Red

BRIDGE OF SPIES (2015)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

What "Bridge of Spies" may lack in complexity for its noble American hero at its center, it makes up for in its complexity of negotiations between two countries who are at the near forefront of war. "Bridge of Spies" is a smoothly textured entertainment with not too many rough edges and not many loopholes or deviations from its central narrative. It is what it is, and seems suited for that reason alone to its 1950's setting.

The opening scenes set up the dichotomy of its setting, character and the eventual demise of all that seems so normal. Abel (Mark Rylance) is a rather meek-looking individual, living in a Brooklyn Heights apartment without anyone taking a second look at this man. He paints at home, and then takes his easel on a subway trip to Prospect Park where he paints some more. Only something is off. A secret message is inside a coin. We do not know what the message is but we can assume espionage is afoot. FBI agents are closing in on him, following his every move. Abel returns to his apartment and examines the message in what looks like a folded piece of paper - he is, in fact, a Soviet intelligence officer. Not much is said, not much needs to be said.

Tom Hanks, returning to his oft-role of the Everyman, is James B. Donovan, an adept insurance lawyer who is asked to defend Abel in court for espionage. Donovan reluctantly takes on the case, told by his firm's boss to take it in stride despite eventual ridicule and hostility from others. An American defending a Russian spy during the brutal Cold War of the late 1950's is tantamount to an act of treason, especially when a death sentence is considered. Despite many threats from police and disapproving looks from passengers on Donovan's regular train trips, he not only takes on the case but also finds that a search warrant was not used in Abel's arrest. Before long, though, Donovan is asked to swap Abel for an American prisoner named Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), a pilot in a shot-down U-2 spy plane who is being held and tortured in a prison near Moscow. When word spreads that an American economics student, Frederick Pryor (Will Rogers), has also been imprisoned and is held in East Berlin, the ever resourceful Donovan suggests a 2-1 swap. The tension increases when Germany learns that the USSR is also behind this swap.

Director Steven Spielberg and writers Matt Charman (who discovered this story as a footnote in a JFK book), Joel and Ethan Coen ratchet up the tension in "Bridge of Spies" through dialogue, hence all the endless negotiations. Donovan has to deal with CIA and KGB agents following his every move, and sometimes he's got German hooligans who want his coat. All this concludes at the swap meeting itself, the Glienicke Bridge in Berlin, but until then, getting all sides to agree on anything proves frustrating.

Also fascinating are the details of Powers' reconnaissance mission over Soviet Union airspace. Prior to flying the mission, Powers is told by his superior that in the event of capture, Powers must commit suicide by ingesting a paralytic toxin from inside the grooves of a coin! Though I have heard of this before, it struck me as an odd arrangement so as not to let the Soviets know of his plans (Powers' attempt to self-destruct the plane is one of the most thrilling and scariest moments of a true flight of terror I have seen in a while). The symmetry of one coin meant to destroy a life just as Abel's coin symbolizes a probable merchant of death was not lost on me.

Most of "Bridge of Spies" is absolutely absorbing but I did wish there was more to Donovan beyond being an able (no pun intended) and noble negotiator. The level of complexity to this family man only extends as far as how American citizens (who read the papers) feel about an American defending a Russian - they are not happy and even Donovan's boss (Alan Alda, always terrific) stops taking meetings in his office. When Donovan sees an execution at the Berlin Wall juxtaposed with a later scene of kids climbing over fences in good old American suburbs, we sense that he recognizes peace can be attained, no matter how many dividers exist. Hanks does infuse his character with a measure of sympathy for Abel, sensing a man who is only doing his job - he saves Rudolph from almost certain execution. Liberals may like that idea, conservatives not so much. 

I did a little avenging today

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Comic-book movies are a dime a dozen lately and "Avengers: Age of Ultron" is no exception. Joss Whedon's sequel in the Marvel Universe saga is competently made, full of sound and fury, has touching and intimate level of humanism, and also feels messy and a bit convoluted. But, hey, why carp, it is still damn entertaining.

After the superhero team has retrieved Loki's powerful scepter from a Hydra facility (brush up on your Avengers knowledge if you have no idea what I am talking about), Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.) has inadvertently created a robotic monster with dry wit called Ultron (courtesy of the voice by James Spader), from a peacekeeping program where this walking contraption mistakenly believes that the mission is human extinction. Ouch! Mr. Stark has screwed up royally. The Avengers also face another threat: the faster-than-Flash runner known as Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and the fiery-engine dressed Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen, an explosive actress), who can project and manipulate people's minds - they have a history with Stark that will not be mentioned here. Meanwhile, a possible looming romance with Dr. Banner aka the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) is initiated by Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) and the heroic Boy Scout with a shield, Captain America (Chris Evans), has a problem with obscene language. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) tries to get the other superheroes to pick up his iconic, powerful hammer but they can't - they are not worthy. Moments like that give this movie a shred of personality.

But the sweetest backstory for these seemingly impenetrable heroes is the home life of expert archer Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), who has an understanding wife (Linda Cardellini) and a daughter. It is scenes of this nature, calmly understated and a reprieve from some noisy explosions, that give what could've been an overproduced and Michael-Bay-ish sequel of unfathomably greedy extremes a lift.

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" is not nearly as spookily thrilling as the first "Avengers" nor is it as overdone in several action climaxes that include destruction of so much property. Ultron is not as menacing as other villains in the Marvel canon but his humorous asides sparkle as much as anything Iron Man might say. But this big-scale box-office blockbuster is less invested in large-scale action than it is in character details, however minute, that give us a reason to care. Watching Hawkeye return from all that "avenging" to his wife who is happy he is home, or watching Black Widow trying to emotionally connect with Banner, gives us hope that the Marvel Universe doesn't side with the literally block-busting of the Michael Bays of the world. There is something truly hypnotic about watching Scarlet Witch gain an insight into the memories of the superheroes (look fast for Agent Carter!). Sure, at the end of the day, "Avengers: Age of Ultron" is cheesy, a little overlong and silly, but never less than engaged with being smart, swift and character-oriented. I am up for more.

'Oblivion' needs a tuning fork

PHANTASM IV: OBLIVION (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

After four ambitious films, it is hard to fathom where this "Phantasm" series is headed. Perhaps it is Oblivion, meaning that the inter-dimensional Tall Man and his hooded demon dwarves will find a way to shut their inner dimension down and seal it forever. As "Phantasm IV: Oblivion" heads for a finale involving a confrontation between The Tall Man and the heroes, we are left in the same spot we had been before. Don Coscarelli's third sequel is more of the same with a disappointing finish.

Returnee A. Michael Baldwin is Mike, last seen with black spherical eyes, who now has a golden sphere in his head (how a sphere the size of a football gets in his head and doesn't squash his brain is a mystery). He flees the mortuary where the domineering Tall Man (Angus Scrimm) resides with his killer spheres. Jody (Bill Thornbury), Mike's older brother who is a sphere, returns and tries to convince Reggie (Reggie Bannister), the gun-toting ice-cream man, to locate Mike since Mike may be transforming into a Tall Man himself. "Phantasm IV" becomes a chase picture with horror overtones, including a demonic patrolman and the latest girlfriend in Reggie's life who has spheres for breasts!

"Phantasm IV: Oblivion" has some nifty ideas, particularly the Tall Man's background as a certain Jebediah Morningside, a 19th century individual who found a way to tap into an inter-dimensional gate. Some of this is fascinating enough to make one wish we saw more. Previous installments have touched on background and character information so it would have been sweet to gain insight into how Jebediah entered the zone and then became Tall Man. Perhaps due to a limited budget, writer-director Don Coscarelli had precious little to work with. Portions of the film devote to endless desert scenes of Mike staring at something in the distance and occasionally having nightmares about the Tall Man, not to mention selective use of never-before-seen footage from the original "Phantasm."

"Phantasm IV" does have bright spots, including Reggie's wisecracks and charming ways with women. The movie also has some great ideas that have unfortunately not been developed or shaped into anything - they are just left up on the screen (hence, the aforementioned Tall Man's history). It is not a bad film, it is spiced with Coscarelli's wit and Scrimm is as menacing as ever, but this sequel desperately needs a tuning fork.

3 wishes are not enough to destroy this series

WISHMASTER 2: EVIL NEVER DIES (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There is one line of dialogue in "Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies" that could have set up for a far more resonant film than the standard-issue horror sequel that it is. A pretty little thief named Morgana wishes to the Djinn for evil to be eradicated. The Djinn reminds her that evil is half of a perfect sphere and without it, good cannot exist. A great line that you would expect a Djinn to say. The rest of this shopworn sequel has little else to give it even a slight lift.

Andrew Divoff still makes for an interesting Djinn but too often he is in human form (as in the original film) and so he merely lowers his head for that insufferable Kubrickian gaze with a Joker smile. It becomes repetitious to say the least. This Djinn is freed from a fire opal during a robbery gone wrong, and he allows himself to get caught by the police! HUH? The Djinn claims some measure of responsibility for the robbery and the rest of the film finds him in "Shawshank Redemption" territory, sneering and provoking prisoners for their ill-conceived wishes. The Djinn's hope is to claim as many souls as possible and destroy humanity. Good luck with that because the logic makes no sense. Good is also half of the sphere and, without humanity, you can't have good or evil - you have nothing. That would make for a boring world, wouldn't it?

"Wishmaster 2" does have one major benefit - Holly Fields as Morgana who is full of guilt over the loss of her lover and the killing of a museum guard. For a brief moment, I sensed the filmmakers (including director Jack Sholder who helmed "Nightmare on Elm Street 2" and "The Hidden") were aiming for a redemptive character study about a woman willing to purify herself for her sins. But the movie dovetails into silliness and aims for graphic gore and stupid gore gags (like a lawyer who gets an anal penetration that is worthy of an SNL skit, not this movie). None of it is memorable or even remotely compelling. I wished this series went away but two more sequels followed. Good movies are only half of a cinematic sphere - crapola has to exist too. 

Van Helsing and Dracula mano-a-mano

VAN HELSING (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2004)

A friend of mine told me that today, movies are aimed to thrill at every second that counts. Audiences want not just vampires in their sleek, creepy-crawly mode, they want vampires that shoot other fang-bearing animals and indulge in fist-fighting. It isn't enough for someone like Professor Van Helsing to confront Dracula with a crucifix and a wooden stake, the good professor must also be able to fight mano-a-mano with the Count. My, the glory days of Universal horror films when the biggest special effect was usually seeing a transformation scene or a vampire changing into a bat.

In this frothy adaptation of "Dracula" and "Frankenstein," Van Helsing is now Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) who may or may not be working for the Vatican (and he is no professor). This Van Helsing is like a secret agent, a hired killer, sent to kill his share of vampires and werewolves, not unlike the crossbow-packing James Woods character from "John Carpenter's Vampires." His first encounter is with Mr. Hyde (Robbie Coltrane), shown as an overgrown, hulkish sociopath, though he appears too animated to be realistic. Next mission: find Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) and kill him. Also up for the impossible mission is the beautifully seductive Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale), the last of her family's ancestry whose sole mission had always been to destroy Dracula. Why? Well, Dracula is not just a bloodsucking vampire. He also has numerous offspring which can be brought to life by electricity. The offspring are, by the way, not just vampires but vampire bats in womb-like cocoons (not unlike "Aliens"). In this wisp of a plot, a whining Frankenstein's Monster (Shuler Hensley) also figures into the action, as well as the Wolf Man. And I'll be darned if there isn't a nod to James Bond, as well as "League of Extraordinary Gentleman."

"Van Helsing" is chock full of special-effects and CGI effects - in fact, the movie has more effects than characters. Vampires morph into winged vampires, electricity shines ever so brightly and strongly in Frankenstein's laboratory, and there are several werewolf transformations that are not any better than the transformations in "Hulk." We also see the traditional burning windmills, ostentatious masked balls (there may be a nod in there to "Fearless Vampire Killers"), carriages that careen wildly, crucifixes, torches, silhouettes, etc. There is even a stupendous opening sequence in black-and-white that is a hark back to what made those early horror films so much fun. But this new movie is not much fun, just a lot of fire and brimstone with too much rapid-cutting and far too many effects. Though there are some brief moments of excitement and a couple of scares (and Beckinsale is always a fetching visual), there is not enough to sustain a feature-length film. It is as if director Stephen Sommers ("The Mummy") was packing in as much as he could in every frame to keep the audience awake. Did he think he was making "Lord of the Rings"?

"Van Helsing" is chock full of itself, a big, lumbering, excessively loud whimper of a blockbuster. There are moments when human characters are flung across the screen with such force that you're surprised their bones remain unbroken. Scenes like that remind you what an unbelievably preposterous movie it really is.

Death of Imagination

THE DEATH OF A PRESIDENT (2006)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I am no prude of any existing order. If a film's subject offends me, then it means it is working to some degree - it is asking me to question why I find it offensive (and this is before I even see it). Some films are morally objectionable in that regard but only if one is prudish and perhaps one may find that there may be more than meets the eye after seeing it. That is to say, the objectionable material that one deems offensive may only be of secondary or tertiary importance. "Pulp Fiction" is a good example of a film that is seemingly amoral and extremely violent; looking back, the film is actually more morally grounded than its infinite copycats and its violence is hardly the subject of the film. Then there are films that are morally problematic - "Birth of a Nation" may be the most famous example of a film that offends because it is racist and had inspired more people to sign up for the KKK than any other. Purposeful or not, it offends our sensibilities because its unflattering and stereotypical view of black people (who are mostly played by whites in blackface) is meant to draw a superiority complex. That is what one can infer as the primary subject of the film.

The same can be said of "The Death of a President." This is a film that is about the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush. Although the film uncovers an FBI investigation into the matter and a Muslim man from Syria as the probable assassin, "Death of a President" is only interested in the assassination per se - it never evolves into anything else. Yes, there are interviews with Dubya's closest advisers and the disgruntled FBI men and some of this is convincing in its faux-documentary style but it gnaws at you for what the set up is, and the set up is wrong in theory. A fictional president would've been more noteworthy for what is a fictional assassination. To use (at the time) an actual sitting President as the basis for a worthless film exercise is more than offensive - it feels like downright heresy. This is something that not even Michael Moore would attempt, and his "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary was about as anti-Bush as anyone could get. There are some not so subtle references here to JFK's assassination and the notion of a lone gunman as well, and not much more I am afraid.

The end titles reveal that the Patriot Act III will come into fruition (Vice President Cheney becomes the sitting President - talk about heresy) and these laws will further limit the civil liberties of the average American citizen. If the filmmakers had the balls to make a film that deals with our civil liberties post-9/11 and sans a pretend assassination, then it would have made for a powerful political commentary. All we get is an assassination and the death of imagination.