Time-travel radio signal

FREQUENCY (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Time-travel can be an exciting arena for the cinema because it defies all logic and pretense. After all, it does not seem feasible that we can travel backwards in time, but the very notion does bring up all kinds of strange paradoxes, as does traveling forward into the future. But then you have a film like "Frequency" which asks not so much to defy logic but to defy reason.

Consider the premise of the film. You have a sullen cop named John Sullivan (Jim Caviezel) who removes an old ham radio from his closet. He plays with it and discovers one night that he can communicate with his father (Dennis Quaid). Here is the catch: John's father, a dedicated firefighter, died in a horrific blazing fire while in the line of duty. So it is John in 1999 having conversations with his dad who is alive and well in 1969! How can this be? Can it be the strange forms of lights in the night sky that are causing a break in the space-time continuum? Or, to be more radical, could it be that it is all in John's mind? Nevertheless, we are left with suspending logic temporarily since John realizes his father will die in that fire within a few days in 1969, just before the Mets play their first game in the World Series! Can John prevent his father from dying in the past? And wouldn't that rupture the space-time continuum?

I am willing to suspend disbelief at the cinemas as much as everyone else, but there is something horribly wrong from the get-go. Though the story is not possible by any stretch of the imagination, in terms of just pure scientific reasoning, how could John be talking to his father from the past? Would that not be changing the future at all just based solely on that premise alone? And how can John only feel that the future has changed until his father changes the past at the approximate time that coincides with the time in the future? Why should that matter? And if everything can be erased as it is with (*SPOILER*) John's father surviving the fire, then how can John feel an alternate time line existing when no one else can? Just a matter of logic and reasoning based on the filmmaker's rules. Stephen Hawking would have a field day with all this.

All paradoxes aside, the basic problem with "Frequency" is that I never believed the relationship between John and his father. Simply put, there is no chemistry between Dennis Quaid and Jim Caviezel - they do not make a fitting father-son combo. And frankly all the time paradoxes, and an implausible serial-killer plot to boot, distracts from the emotional connection to the story, which is simply about a father and son trying to communicate. Added to that is the lack of an explanation about Jim's girlfriend, who leaves him at the beginning, and then does not recognize him later after the past had been changed. A little nod to "It's A Wonderful Life" to be sure, but the subplot is left dangling like an unexposed wire in a time machine, and thus she is never seen or heard from again.

If nothing else, it is a pleasure seeing Dennis Quaid back to his clever, sly, cocky self - sort of a grown-up version of his character in "Dreamscape." He is often like a live wire, ready to explode at any moment (the opening sequence where he survives a fire is followed by a sampling of Martha Reeves' "Heatwave.") "Frequency" is too just too low on the voltage meter to follow Quaid's live-wire act.

Up where she belongs

UP AT THE VILLA (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed in 2000

"Up at the Villa" is a strange movie experience, possibly because such a polite film of manners and delicacy switches gears and becomes something other than what you might expect. It has the grandly theatrical look and feel of 1999's "An Ideal Husband" but it develops into something akin to an Agatha Christie mystery.

Kristin Scott Thomas stars as the widowed, highly composed Mary Panton who locks herself inside a beautiful villa, often contemplating her lack of passion while sitting out in her garden (my, my, how great it must be to be rich). Mary is unsure of whether she should accept a marriage proposal from a courtly diplomat (James Fox) but she must answer soon since he is going on a trip (and gives her a gun to protect herself from the roaming refugees on the streets). She leans more towards a married, debonair American (Sean Penn), though she resists him at first due to his honesty. Then there is the pity she feels towards a young, poor Austrian violinist (Jeremy Davies) who is also a refugee. One thing leads to another and when she tries to resist the young, passionate fellow, things get rather awry.

This is where the big switch in tone and style comes in, and "Up at the Villa" becomes more of a moral tale where immorality takes the day. Yes, immoral, considering the choices Mary makes when confronted with danger. A film like this would not have existed during the Production Code days where protagonists had to be punished for their crimes. Mary and the American get involved in a crime that evolves into a highly political situation - even the Italian police are corrupt.

The performances deliver for the most part, all very classy acts to be sure. Kristin Scott Thomas has a difficult role, exuding sensuousness, duplicity and beauty all in one package, often at the most inappropriate moments. Still, she has class and elegance and maturity - though not at the same breadth as in "Angels and Insects" (directed by Philip Haas who helmed this one as well). Anne Bancroft is the gossip-mongering neighbor married to Italian royalty who is as freewheeling and flirtatious as they come. Sean Penn is the added sparkle to this fine cast, his nuance and diction are as far removed from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" as you might expect and he is far more restrained than he usually is. He also has the right flair and chemistry in any scene he shares with Scott Thomas. Kudos must also go to Derek Jacobi's brief role as a flamboyant tour guide of sorts.

"Up at the Villa" is an uneven film, never quite finding the consistent tone that it needs, but it is slick and involving enough. Sometimes, picturesque settings and Kristin Scott Thomas wearing any colorful wardrobe she chooses is often enough for me. "Up at the Villa" has plenty of both.

Cameron Crowe's Eyes are Wide Shut

VANILLA SKY (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed late December 2001

"Vanilla Sky" is a Cameron Crowe rock n' roll movie trying to be a sophisticated, ambiguous thriller and it is reason enough to conclude that Hollywood is dying. To some it may be dead already but "Vanilla Sky" will not win any new fans of La-La Land. Those who found Cruise's offbeat, artistic endeavors through Kubrick and P.T. Anderson's worlds cumbersome will find his return to such dreamlike territory a lot less than thrilling. Either way, "Vanilla Sky" has compelling material delivered in a perfunctory and unbelievable manner.

Cruise plays David Aames, a rich, hotshot publisher of a "Maxim"-like magazine called "Rise." David is not liked by his business partners who all feel slighted that they did not inherit the magazine from his father. He calls all the shots but hardly seems to care about the business. He has a luxurious apartment with a great view of New York City, a splendid woman friend, Julie Ganni (Cameron Diaz), whom he sleeps with on occasion, lavish parties where a hologram of John Coltrane can impress his guests, and so on. Is he really deserving of such a life or is his life an empty, lonely one? That may all change. The night of his 33rd birthday party, David meets his best friend's new date, Sofia Serrano (Penelope Cruz), and instantly falls in love with her. Sofia is charmed yet unimpressed with David and realizes that Julie (who comes to the party uninvited) is a sad woman in love - "the sad girl with the martini." But Julie gets jealous and begins stalking David. Before you can say "Fatal Attraction," Julie drives off a bridge with David in it. David gets disfigured, Julie dies, he loses his friends, almost loses his acquired business, is suspected of murder, and begins to wonder if everything is real or simply a dream or if he is in a coma. Or perhaps David is simply shut out from reality permanently. Maybe he is dead. By the three-quarter mark of this movie, I could not care less for David or his constant whining.

Based on Alejandro Amenabar's "Abre Los Ojos," "Vanilla Sky" has intriguing ideas lurking beneath a Cameron Crowe movie that is less interested in building its theme of a discovery of one's awakening reality than being an overlong homage to rock n' roll. Yes, this is Crowe at work here but this was not meant to be "Almost Famous" with David Lynch overtones. The tone of the movie is off, wavering uneasily between romantic comedy, a thriller, and a David Lynch nightmare. There are rock songs playing on the soundtrack every few minutes to remind us to stay awake while Cruise wears a mask explaining his past, present and future to a psychiatrist (Kurt Russell). The mask reminds one instantly of Cruise's far superior role in "Eyes Wide Shut." There are twists and turns piled up so often that they made me feel like my leg was merely being pulled from one extreme to the other. "Open your eyes" is the phrase said with great repetition in the film. So why was I so insistent on closing them?

None of this would seem distracting if at least we had a glimmer of sympathy or empathy for David. As played by Cruise, he is a bitter fool with a nice smile who has no inner life - a spoiled rich kid, nothing more. The movie has no degree of subtlety or nuance, even in terms of dialogue. There is no feeling of a change occurring in David because he seems like a cipher from the beginning. He has no inner dimensions to speak of and it was hard to feel sorry for his disfigurement at any moment.

As I said, the dialogue certainly doesn't help matters. One line that had me cringing (and there are many) includes a ludicrous scene in a bar where a disfigured David tries to get the bartender to make eye contact with him. "Look at me, bitch," says David. Not one of Tom Cruise's proudest moments or Crowe's. And the constant referral to Julie as a "f--- buddy" left me wandering my eyes to the nearest exit. I am no admirer of "Jerry Maguire" but I'd rather sit through that again than this garbage.

"Vanilla Sky" is a reference to the clouds in a Monet painting, and thus the basis for a Paul McCartney title track. But it is one putrid, laughably obvious trifle of a movie with Cruise merely going through the motions. With an underwritten role for Diaz, an always smiling Penelope Cruz who steals the movie, a sometimes masked Cruise and a shockingly awful, over-explained finale, I left the theatre in great haste and disgust. Here is a fitting alternative to seeing this movie: close your eyes and take a nap for a couple of hours.

Liane Curtis rocks the Hell out of Satan

GIRLFRIEND FROM HELL (1989)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"I wish I picked a different line of work" - Satan

Great line delivered with puckish wit by Liane Curtis, who clearly relishes the role of Satan who has taken possession of a geeky girl. If only the movie had more delectable lines of wit and less sexual biplay that leads nowhere. And less wine drinking courtesy of Curtis.

The plot is fairly simple. The girl-next-door-type who can't stomach a date with anyone or look them in the face is being set up at a birthday party for a louse named Rocco. The date is not Rocco but an extremely shy, meek-looking Carl (Anthony Barrile) who is given advice by his dad (hilarious cameo by James Karen) on how to pick up women that might not fly in today's oversensitive millennialized climate. Curtis plays the geeky girl, Maggie, who doesn't know how to wear fake eyelashes though her lacy leggings with lipstick designs suggest a different kind of girl. Sooner than expected, Maggie steps out of the party and is consumed by some red flash of light from the sky. Yep, she is possessed by Satan and you know Satan is no kind of repressed teenager, no way. Maggie suddenly sports a pouffed-up hairstyle, seduces every man and then sucks their souls out of their bodies, tries to run down a group of gun-toting nuns (!), embarrasses everyone at a restaurant, drinks wine by the gallon, you get the picture. She is the 1980's own Party Girl who grows bored easily.

Meanwhile, Dana Ashbrook ("Twin Peaks") is Chaser, who literally chases Satan hoping to extinguish her to hell and damnation, but not before apologizing for not being the best boyfriend to her all those ages ago. He is constantly teleported from what looks likes the desert to the house party, to a nightclub, back to the desert - it gets repetitive in the second act all this mindless teleporting.

"Girlfriend From Hell" is a shapeless disaster, neither comical enough or sexy or funny enough to qualify as anything other a dry hump of a cinematic experience. Liane Curtis is the best thing in the film (her sole leading role) and it is always fun to watch Lezlie Deane (who later appeared in "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare") as a more sophisticated friend of Maggie's who smacks and punches men without blinking. Fact is that women in this movie kick and punch men and the men are as apologetic as ever, until they decide to keep focusing on breasts and lower extremities. Women are also seen as nothing but sluts and if they aren't, they sure as hell will turn into one (except for Lezlie Deane). Most of this film could offend women overall (80's movies never gave young women a fair shake) but the biggest offense in "Girlfriend From Hell" is that it is likely to put the viewer to sleep. Teleport me out of here.

Collette and Diaz in Sibling Rivalry

IN HER SHOES (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Original review from 2005

A chick flick from a chick lit bestseller? Both of these terms have recently been entered into the Webster's dictionary. I despise the terms because they limit what both may offer. Does chick flick describe all romantic comedies, movies about women bonding, female empowerment or all the above? I don't see how "Pretty Woman" and "Thelma Louise" fit in the same category, but never mind. "In Her Shoes" could've been cliched, sentimental glop that pushed the tearjerking mechanisms down the throat of your average moviegoer. Instead it is a heartwarming, regaling tale of two sisters who are at extreme polar opposites in their relationship and attitude.

Based on a novel by Jennifer Weiner, "In Her Shoes" stars Cameron Diaz as a flirtatious, alcoholic, dyslexic woman, Maggie, who has no desire to do anything except to party and screw. At the start of the film, Maggie is seen at a high-school reunion screwing some unnamed guy in a bathroom (Conservatives take note). She arrives at her parents' home only to be thrown out. Now she must live with her prim and proper sister, Rose (Toni Collette), a Philadelphia attorney who has her own man in bed! Talk about an inconvenience, Maggie takes wind and has a romp in the hay with him as well. Before that happens, Rose insists that Maggie find a job but it is a downhill struggle - Maggie is kicked out of Rose's house and is forced to find her own way. While moving her things from her parents' house, she finds birthday cards addressed to her and Rose from her grandmother in Florida. These letters were concealed for reasons I'll not reveal, but it is the precedent for Maggie's migration to Florida to mooch off her grandmother.

Ella is the grandmother (played by Shirley MacLaine), living in a retirement community where she assists older folks. She is no dummy and can see through Maggie. Ella points out that Maggie's option is to work at the retirement home and, if she succeeds, Ella will match her pay dollar for dollar. If not, Maggie is back on the street. And you can imagine what the retired older men think when they see a nearly naked Maggie sunbathing while they play poker.

Meanwhile, Rose is pursued by Simon (Mark Feuerstein), a co-worker who is seriously smitten with her. She also quits her job and becomes a dog-walker! However, just like Maggie, she can't communicate her feelings about her sister and lies to everyone, including her parents. Of course, her father (Ken Howard) has his own deep secret.

Nothing too surprising happens in "In Her Shoes" but it is the movie's confidence in the characters of Maggie and Rose that helps raise this a few notches above the usual term I hate, "chick flick." Thanks to screenwriter Susannah Grant and director Curtis Hanson ("L.A. Confidential"), the movie offers ample time invested in these characters so that the highly emotional finale wrings true with tears well-earned. This is simply a story of sibling rivalry and each sibling learning from each other. Rose builds confidence and learns to communicate her emotions, which are always kept in check. Maggie turns from a dyslexic floozie to a respectable, poetry-loving woman who learns to appreciate life and what it has to offer. This doesn't mean she'll feel differently about wearing good shoes.

Something nagged at me during the movie though. According to a reliable source who read the book (my wife), Rose is quite fat in the novel. In the movie, Toni Collette hardly looks like a fat ugly duckling (this is the same woman who lit up "Muriel's Wedding"). Reportedly, Collette gained 25 pounds for the part but you can hardly tell (at least I couldn't - shades here of Zellweger's slim weight gain for "Bridget Jones's Diary"). And so the highly charged scene where Rose finds her sister in the throes of her boyfriend that leads to Maggie calling Rose a "fat pig" doesn't register as anything except as a verbal insult. If Collette represents a fat woman in this day and age, then where does that leave the formerly heavy Kirstie Alley? The debate continues.

"In Her Shoes" is a pleasant, often entertaining film with truly engaging performances by Cameron Diaz and Toni Collette. Diaz is so good that you forget she's acting, and is truly moving in scenes where she reads an Elizabeth Bishop poem to a blind professor. Diaz also has good chemistry with Collette and their rickety relationship is believable. Collette is an underrated actress (who was Oscar-nominated for "The Sixth Sense") and she provides all the dramatic weight that colors Rose. She can be sweet, enraged, demure and loving - her smile at the end is quixotic and unforgettable. I also love Shirley MacLaine as Ella, the sharp, tough grandmother who is still tickled pink when asked out on a date. Mark Feuerstein is a capable romantic lead and has a certain charm - I wish there were more scenes between him and Rose. Also worth mentioning is Brooke Smith's equally sharp turn as Rose's best friend, Amy, whom Rose confides in. And there's also Ken Howard as the loving, understanding father who realizes he can't hide things from his daughters forever.

For laughs and some revelatory truths about sisters, "In Her Shoes" is highly recommended. It doesn't hit you over the head with messages or how to become a better person. The movie is slinky and sophisticated in its mood and tone and gives you comfort - just like wearing a good pair of shoes.

Conventionally unconventional rom-com

BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed on July 3rd, 2001

Renee Zellweger is an actress whose sprightly charm and quivering, cutesy smile can melt moviegoers' hearts like no other. She is the girl-next-door type but her irresistibility breaks some new ground here - you get the feeling that she can be embarrassed and impish at the same time. She is the unique joy of "Bridget Jones' Diary," a fairly amusing if slightly misguided romantic comedy with ample charm and considerable laughs. It just lacks the extra leap to take it beyond conventionality.

Bridget Jones (Renee Zellweger) is the neurotic, lonely, uncouth heroine of the 1996 bestseller by Helen Fielding. She is so lonely that she drinks heavily while listening to Eric Carmen's "All By Myself" (a touching, heartbreaking moment). At first glance, no one seems to take a gander at Bridget. She is plumpish and tends to say exactly what is on her mind, including at book receptions where everyone looks at her with slight bemusement. At dinner parties, she confronts men who see her as an unappealing spinster, including the rich Mr. Darcy (Colin Firth). Her boss, however, takes a liking to her (he is played with irresistible glee by Hugh Grant), and the two begin having an affair. Of course, Mr. Darcy gets jealous since he does like her.

It is no surprise where the film is headed when we know Mr. Darcy will inevitably change his mind about Bridget. But the film takes on a knowing, self-conscious style at the beginning where we begin to think that it will poke fun at romantic comedy conventions. There is a moment where Bridget makes an error in judgment at work and we see her unsaid obscenity splashed across the screen. "Bridget Jones' Diary," however, does not take as many unconventional routes as one might hope. Bridget loves the two men but has to decide between one. Bridget also tries to bring her parents back together after a brief separation. Some of these episodes work better than others but they hardly figure cohesively as a whole.

I have not read Fielding's book but I've been told that it truly maps out Bridget's insecurities and messy lifestyle with more depth. The film does show her drinking and eating and smoking too much and we sense she is real obsessive and has trouble finding the proper man (she is also a bad cook, witness the strange coloring of her cooked meals). But all these qualities are painted in broad strokes. Bridget's biggest flaw seems to be her uncouth quality but I was not clear why everyone seemed so perturbed whenever she made a speech (I found her speeches funny and engaging). As played by Zellweger, she has charm and an affable quality but her weight gain (reports say she gained as much as 20 to 40 pounds for the role) does not exactly put her on the same scale as Conchata Ferrell (who I love no matter how much she weighs). In other words, I get the sense that the film has been sanitized from its written form to accommodate all women in the audience. Where does this leave the women who are perhaps uncomfortable with their weight or who need someone like Bridget Jones as their role model, essentially saying it is okay to be fat and still have Hugh Grant as your suitor?

"Bridget Jones' Diary" has Zellweger at its center and she is as convincing and delightful as one can imagine. Kudos also go to Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in witty supporting roles (I could have lived without a cliched fistfight between them). There is also a funny cameo by Salman Rushdie as himself no less. The film has pizzazz to offer but compare this to any other romantic comedy, and I dare you to find the difference.

Better than Identity, Bourne still remote

THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Original review from 2004)

I sat for two hours watching "The Bourne Supremacy" with a full audience at a 3:00 afternoon show. After the first twenty minutes, I could not concentrate for too long because I grew dizzy (added to that, I kept hearing an old guy snoring behind me). The dizziness was due to the constant hand-held camerawork, relentless to the point that the camera shakes more violently during an action sequence or a fistfight. And yet this movie is far more enjoyable than "The Bourne Identity," a bland thriller that coasted along its own bland energy.

The movie jumps into high action gears immediately. The slowly-getting-out-of-his-amnesiac-shell Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is now living in India with his girlfriend, Marie (Franka Potente), shut out from the rest of the world. Of course, like any Robert Ludlum spy thriller, you can't keep a good assassin down for long. Bourne notices a man dressed in the wrong clothes and driving the wrong car near the streets of this Indian pueblo - someone is after him and wants him killed. Bourne whisks Marie away in his jeep, crashes off a bridge, falls deep underwater, and tries to rescue Marie. Unfortunately, she is dead (and don't expect her to come back a la "Run Lola Run's" time-twisting narrative). So who is after Bourne? It turns out that Bourne is accused of killing someone during a CIA mission - his fingerprints are planted there! This begs the question: who got his fingerprints? Definitely not the Russian assassin who tried to kill Bourne in the opening sequence. Or maybe the hand-held camerawork swayed from any details that couldn't stay on screen longer than two seconds.

Bourne wants to clear his name. He goes after Pamela Landy (Joan Allen - always a welcome presence), a new agent who wants the truth as much as Bourne does. The trouble is that this Ludlum antihero is always one step ahead of everyone, including Landy and the reptilian CIA boss, Ward Abbott (Brian Cox). He travels from Naples to Berlin to Moscow, always evading the CIA. In one chilling moment, Bourne aims his telescopic rifle at the unaware Landy while communicating via cell phone. And he is still one hell of a fighter, even disabling someone with a rolled-up magazine! And boy, can this guy move! He jumps with the ease of a Jackie Chan and, at times, resembles a superhero with his dark overcoat. Oh, and he can do wonders with toasters!

The movie is murky with details and conspiracy rings, particularly involving Abbott who you know is as corrupt as anyone in the entire movie. We are never sure who or what is responsible or why. We just get carried along by Bourne's continuous search for the truth, especially the possibility that he murdered a Russian in Berlin (an apparent introductory drill into the life of an assassin).

"The Bourne Supremacy" is dense with details that do not amount to much. It is sort of a latter-day "The Fugitive" with Bourne visiting hotels, apartments, train stations - they serve as reminders of long-forgotten memories that can trigger his cabeza to dispel truths he wants the CIA to uncover. Yet we still never discover who this Jason Bourne really is. After two movies, we just know he is an able assassin and a quick-as-lighting fighter - Damon plays him as a robot with no sense of humor. Realistically, it makes sense but it can get on your nerves. To be fair, he seems more threatening than he was in "Identity" and we do get carried along by his charisma.

As for the interminable hand-held camerawork, it is unfathomable how director Paul Greengrass thought this was the best way to shoot. The camera swings between 180 to 360 degrees, rotating and panning with barely much stabilization. Some people on the movie discussion boards said it was a way of "implying action." How can you imply when you can't tell what may or may not be implied? Still, I grew accustomed to it (and the use of long lenses where there would be out-of-focus shots) but it could have used the more rapid-fire, stabilized approach of John Frankeheimer's "Ronin" or William Friedkin's "The French Connection." I will say that the climactic car chase involving a taxicab and a SUV is about as exciting as car chases ever get, and the hand-held camera approach exemplifies it.

"The Bourne Supremacy" is entertaining enough for its two-hour running time, but it is a hollow, cursory thriller. We don't know what is really at stake and we learn precious little about Jason Bourne. It is the latest Hollywood thrill ride and it is engaging in a remote way, but it needs more carbs.