Middle-of-the-road Mametspeak

HEIST (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

David Mamet was our god of staccato dialogue in films for a long time. The beauty of the Mametspeak was the fluidity with which the dialogue was said, even if the rhythm involved breaks, turns and interruptions. It used to be that seeing a Mamet film or play was about hearing the dialogue and watching the plot unfold with enough twists and turns to make screwdrivers jealous. Some of that changed when Quentin Tarantino arrived on the scene with his trademark wordplay but Mamet continued to make strong directorial efforts like "American Buffalo" and "The Spanish Prisoner." His latest film, "Heist," seems to lack that spark of Mametspeak that unfolds from his best work where the dialogue fits in with the story where it flows in such a way that you don't notice it.

"Heist" stars the very dependable, 70-year-old Gene Hackman as Joe Moore, an aging, "burnt" robber who screws up his last job when his face is plastered on surveillance cameras during a jewel heist. His employer, Bergman (the even more dependable Danny DeVito), is not as ready to give Joe and his crew a piece of the action until they perform one more heist, relayed to as the "Swiss thing." This drives Joe mad to the point where he is ready to quit by pretending to bungle the preparation for the heist so he can get away. But Bergman's smooth nephew Jimmy (Sam Rockwell) keeps coming back, persuading Joe to take the job. Or maybe Jimmy is interested in Joe's young, pixie-hairdo wife, Fran (Rebecca Pidgeon), who is perhaps as duplicitous as she may look, or maybe not. These scenes show off Mamet at his best, rough and tough and lean with those four-letter words rattling off character's mouths like the unsung poetry of honorable thieves. Therefore, it is a shame to report that the heists themselves are the least interesting aspects of the film.

The actual heist involves the stealing of gold from a cargo plane. Joe along with his motley crew, Bobby (Delroy Lindo) and Pinky (Mamet regular Ricky Jay), are along for the ride though they sense Joe may be running out of steam and is too old to cut the mustard. That is what the naive Jimmy thinks as does Fran, but part of the beauty of the film is that seeing is not always believing. That is right! We are back in the Mamet world of con artists who devise one scheme after another. Mamet seems to be asking how honorable are thieves when outside parties are involved. Some of these scenes work so well that they could have led to a different film altogether. The whole set-up where they plan the heist and then defy the odds by faking errors is as delightful a scene as Mamet has written in a while. I also like the tension during a fake construction crew set-up where a cop appears asking questions. I also heartily enjoyed the initial steps leading to the robbing of the cargo plane where Joe pretends to be a security guard. And anytime Jimmy was physically beaten by Joe, as if Jimmy was made of papier mache, I was delighted. But something is off. The dialogue often, if not always, sounds like witty exchanges or one-liners that anyone on Saturday Night Live might have conjured up, not Mamet. For example, we hear lines like, "he is so cool that sheep count him." Or how about, "she could talk her way out of a sunburn." The best line is when Bergman hollers at Joe on the phone and says, "You know why people need money. Because it is money." The film's context is summed up in that one line but the rest could have been written with more punch by Tarantino.

It's been said that every story has been told already. But "Heist" is already one of three heist pictures of 2001. I guess I am sick and tired of the cliched adage about the old pro who wants to do one last job and slip away and live comfortably. Mamet does little to make it invigorating or dissimilar from any other crime picture in the last decade or so, and even the heists themselves are not as fresh or tense as the ones in "The Score" or "Topkapi" for that matter. I would have preferred if Mamet had chosen not to show the heists and instead focused deeply on the characters and their intentions.

Do not fret for those of you reading this review. I certainly recommend "Heist" because of the grand cast of actors involved not to mention some terrific individual scenes. But coming from the man who brought us "House of Games" and "Oleanna," this film seems more like middle-of-the-road Mamet than the Mamet we are used to.

Gitmo and deer remains equal grossly misguided sequel

HAROLD AND KUMAR ESCAPE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The first "Harold and Kumar" movie was admittedly a guilty pleasure but it was also unexpectedly funny and had two likable characters - a sort of latter-day Cheech and Chong with an even stronger stoner mentality. This new "Harold and Kumar" movie is not as charming and hardly as funny, emphasizing gross gags of the most puerile kind over any sort of intimacy the first film had.

I know, I know, you might be shaking your head and saying, "Intimacy?" Yes, well, the first movie was a roller-coaster ride full of belly laughs along the way yet it also asked us to care about Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) and their misadventures. In "Escape From Guantanamo Bay," the Mary Jane duo are mistaken for terrorists in an airplane headed to Amsterdam, thanks to an advanced glass bong that Kumar brought along and tries to smoke in the bathroom! So we get a few scenes in Guantanamo Bay where they are interrogated and forced to submit to oral sex with the burly prison guards (some of this elicits more of a wince than a chuckle). Eventually, within the first twenty minutes, Harold and Kumar manage to escape good old torturous Gitmo and head for Texas where Kumar's ex-girlfriend is marrying a right- wing yuppie, who believes in snorting Xanax (okay, that is funny.) Not so humorous is a KKK rally headed by Christopher Meloni as the wizard, and a decidedly unfunny homage to "The Goonies" with a one-eyed bastard child that lives in the basement of a deer hunter's house. And, I might add, that a deer-killing scene made me cringe - it would've been funnier if the hunter missed and the bullet hit a tree that collapsed and nearly crushed the doe's nuts. Well, maybe not but that is the kind of humor I expected. Seeing blood splatter on Harold's face is very, very cringe-inducing.

That is the central problem with this Harold and Kumar entry - it made me cringe more often than laugh. There are bodily fluids, flatulence sounds galore, male and female frontal nudity from the waist down, lots of bong hits (though not as many as I expected), sexual escapades of all sorts, an unwatchable brothel sequence with Neil Patrick Harris as Neil Patrick Harris and Beverly D'Angelo as the madam, and on and on.

To be fair, I enjoyed the racial stereotyping scenes - they were all smart and clever, particularly the airport sequence which is as hysterical as anything else in the entire movie. I also liked Kumar's past reminiscences of his ex-girlfriend, Vanessa (Daneel Harris), who introduced Kumar to drugs in the first place! Had the film focused more on that relationship and less on the unevenly paced trip to Texas (including a literal bumping in with George W. Bush), the movie might have been a real winner.

"Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay" is not a total washout and it is not a bad stoner comedy. It does have its heart in the right place occasionally with respect to the lead characters - they are too likable to dismiss. But the movie scores more misses than bong hits to the belly. Let's say that the right herbal ingredients were not used this time.

Dude, Where's My Burger?

HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

A title like "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle" seems unheard of. I was expecting another in the long line of unfunny pot comedies like "How High" and "Orange County." I was tickled by the funny bone on this movie - "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle" is a tasty treat. I wouldn't say that I felt I had to see it but even though it is nothing special, it is funnier than most movies of its ilk.

The bashful Harold (John Cho) is a hard-working Wall Street analyst who is always getting an extra workload from his boss. Kumar (Kal Penn) intentionally botches every medical school interview because he just wants to get high and eat White Castle burgers. What are two guys to do on a Friday night? Well, they have to run to White Castle, but they can't find one in New Brunswick, NJ (there actually is one there). Panic enters their periphery when they inadvertently watch people get beat up in Newark, NJ (talk about a wrong turn!) As they drive searching for White Castle, they encounter a few bullies who thrash convenience stores; an out-of-control raccoon; students at Princeton who are either flatulent (as in battleship flatulence) or sell dear Mary Jane; fast cheetahs; irate police officers; a freakish tow truck driver; nymphets; strangers urinating in bushes, and actor Neil Patrick Harris - that's right, our own Doogie Howser. Let's not forget there is also a discussion on Katie Holmes's breasts.

"Harold and Kumar" depends on one's tolerance for watching two guys with nothing to do except the desire to eat burgers. Though there are some gross gags and one too many homosexual jokes, Cho's Harold and Penn's Kumar are likable enough and have their own personal problems to iron out. Harold has to work the nerve to ask a pretty neighbor out, and Kumar has to grow up and show his father he can be responsible and become a hell of a good physician.

For those who can get past its lulls and very slight overlength (despite an 88 minute running time, some trimming would have made it special), "Harold and Kumar" is good enough to make one wish it were tastier.

Above-par Z production

THE MASK OF ZORRO (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed in 1998

It is rare to see an action-adventure film that evokes memories of the action serials of yesteryear - remember The Masked Avenger or Buck Rogers? A commonplace argument is that recent action films focus more on Dolby-ized explosions and car crashes than any story or plot. "The Mask of Zorro" is that rarity - a fast-paced, rollicking action film that brings back the snap and vigor of Zorro in all its glory without resorting to extreme violence or heavy explosions, and it has a reasonably decent story to tell.

During the opening sequence, we learn that Zorro, otherwise known as Don Diego de la Vega (played with panache by Anthony Hopkins) is the masked hero of the Mexican people. Some prisoners are about to be executed by a firing squad led by Governor Don Rafaelo Montero (Stuart Wilson), and the crowd bawls. Before you know it, Zorro comes out of thin air and rescues the prisoners with sword, whip, a trusty steed, and attitude. Unfortunately, he is apprehended by Montero's guards resulting in the death of his wife.

Twenty years later, Alejandro Murrieta (Antonio Banderas) is a wandering street thief who inexplicably becomes Zorro's star pupil - I say inexplicably because who would want to tutor a curly long-haired wanderer on the street, but never mind. Zorro teaches Murrieta everything about swords, chivalry, matters of etiquette, conversation, and well-groomed appearances. Thus, Murrieta becomes the new, dashing Zorro slicing his way through several of Montero's minions, and dancing elegantly with Montero's daughter, Elena (British-born Catherine Zeta-Jones), who is really Vega's daughter.

"The Mask of Zorro" has plenty of stunts and action scenes, but its main thrust is an expanded backstory about Vega's past and the revenge he seeks on his wife's death. This exposition with the well-cast Hopkins shows more flair and promise than I might have anticipated, even for a hokey Hollywood production like this one.

As for Banderas and Zeta-Jones, they do have sparkling chemistry, culminating in a romantic kiss during a sword duel. The biggest weakness is Stuart Wilson (previously a villain in "Lethal Weapon 3") as the fatuous Montero who isn't remotely threatening or evil. Still, "The Mask of Zorro" is as escapist and fun as Hollywood has been getting lately.

Overpowering beauty in Yimou's landscape

HERO aka YING XIONG (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There is an astonishing sequence in "Hero" that features an array of arrows fired from hundreds of soldiers in an open field. The arrows are aimed at a calligraphy school. The arrows kill many students and, eventually, two students perform a balletic maneuver of deflecting the arrows. It is so astonishing and breathtaking, carefully composed and orchestrated, just like a ballet. Chinese director Zhang Yimou ("Raise the Red Lantern") is at his best in martial-arts action scenes that seemed ripped out of a comic-book. They are vivid splashes of color and sound that abound on screen and are as hair-raising as anything in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." The emotional involvement, however, is low, even for Yimou who directed one of the finest films of the 1990's, the subtle, overpowering "The Story of Qiu Ju."

The title hero of this film is Nameless (Jet Li), a Chinese assassin who has purportedly killed three assassins who have plotted to kill the King of Qin (Chen Dao Ming). The three assassins include Broken Sword (Tony Leung), Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung) and Long Sky (Donnie Yen). Nameless arrives at the King's court to announce the news, though he must remain firstly 100 to 10 paces from the King's throne or else he will be killed. The King has hopes to unite all three kingdoms of China to make for a peaceful country with no reason to ever to go to war again. Unfortunately, through a series of "Rashomon" flashbacks, we discover that Nameless's story changes. It is discovered that Flying Snow and Broken Sword were lovers, but was death induced over jealousy or fatalism over the disagreement of political ideals? And what about the loving yet occasionally fierce Moon (Zhang Ziyi from "Crouching Tiger"), was she Broken Sword's lover or was she merely a fighter who wanted to protect her friends? Could the deadly Long Sky be such a careless fighter when battling Nameless? More importantly, did Nameless actually face these enemies and destroy them?

"Hero" asks many of these questions and, towards the end of the film, I wasn't sure what the outcome would be. I was surprised and realized what director Yimou was aiming for in terms of mythological resonance. The problem is that the "Rashomon" flashbacks lend little in the way of pathos or character development, both staples of Yimou's earlier work. These assassins fly through the air with grace, fight with balletic ease, and know how to deflect numerous arrows at once. But we learn precious little about them, they seem to exist more as mythological figures than human beings.

If anything works wonders, it is cinematographer Christopher Doyle's astounding imagery. The sword fight between Moon and Flying Snow amidst yellow leaves blowing in the wind is sublime (especially when the leaves turn red). Another sword fight between Nameless and Long Sky culminates in freezing drops of rain broken by Nameless's sword - even the rain acts as a barrier or shield against the enemy. There are also terrifically composed shots that show some character definition such as the endless walks down the school corridors, the lovemaking under the sheets (a shot I recall from Bertolucci's "The Last Emperor"), a suicidal pact in the desert, Nameless's walk to the King's throne amongst thousands of soldiers, the exquisite moments when we see the process of calligraphy, and so much more visual beauty that I can't say any audience member will not be wowed by what they see.

"Hero" is also too short at 1 hour and forty minutes - you wish Yimou and his writers took advantage of full character exposition. Still, this is a daring new direction for Jet Li - he has a commanding presence and is, of course, one hell of a fighter. If Li appears in a film with Zhang Ziyi again, I am there - they play the strongest characters in "Hero." For fans of martial-arts and exquisite, colorful images, you can't do better than the visually enthralling "Hero."

Kicking with omnipotence

THE ONE (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Jet Li has presence, style and is not a bad actor at all. But if he is not quick on his feet, he may end up like Jean Claude Van Damme with synthetic formulaic nonsense like "The One."

Li plays Yulaw who, I am guessing, plays a cop who travels from one parallel universe to another. His mission is to destroy all 123 selves, and with each self that is killed, he becomes even more powerful. Apparently, after demolishing the final 124th self, he will become the omnipotent "The One!" Naturally, the 124th self is not ready to be killed by Yulaw, known in the very last parallel universe as Gabe, an admired Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy. This movie believes there are only 124 parallel universes, but what does Yulaw think will happen when he kills the last self? What is the one, and the one of what exactly?

I suppose it is counterproductive to review a martial-arts film like this because the fighting sequences are well-choreographed, and people will see this film to see Jet Li fighting. But there is a lot here that depends on special-effects and CGI effects right out of "The Matrix." You see, Yulaw is not just human, he is superhuman. He can run at super speed, dodge bullets in Neo-style, and throw motorbikes like they were made of paper mache. But director James Wong makes no effort to flesh out any kind of story or provide raison d'etre for what occurs. It is wall-to-wall with action but no character and no pulse. Everyone is a cardboard cartoon character with no purpose other than to provide window dressing for Jet Li's next fancy move.

I had seen Jet Li in "Kiss of the Dragon" and that was an energetic, entertaining film that provided some decent, colorful characters as the foreground for the background action scenes. "The One" places action in the foreground and the background.

2001: A Soporific Odyssey

MISSION TO MARS (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Brian De Palma has aped Hitchcock in most of his work and done it with real style and pizzazz. Sometimes his work turned to other corners of inspiration, like his homage to Eisenstein's "Potemkin" in "The Untouchables." Then there were his early political films like "Greetings" and "Hi, Mom!" But where on earth does "Mission to Mars" belong in this director's career? Somewhere between the botched "The Bonfire of the Vanities" and the ludicrously overwrought "Scarface." "Mission to Mars" is a bad film, a sort of cinematic link to Kubrick's "2001" but it is a boring, highly unimaginative work, not the sort of enjoyably sleazy badness of "Body Double" or the campiness of "Raising Cain." All you might do is doze through most of this mission.

A few astronauts in the year 2020 are sent to Mars to excavate and discover the red planet where no atmosphere exists. According to this film (and I suppose this is a known scientific fact), it takes six months to get to Mars from Earth and another six to return naturally. It felt like six months sitting through this mess. But I digress, as we discover in the first half-an-hour that a trip to Mars was a foolish idea from the start. A sandstorm with a peering, snakelike tornado sucks in everything in its sight, including two fellow astronauts. One survives, as played by Don Cheadle, which makes sense since he is the best actor in the group. Other astronauts at a nearby ship in space decide to go to Mars and get Cheadle back safely. The actors playing this other group of geniuses include Tim Robbins, Gary Sinise, Jerry O'Connell and Connie Nielsen. They all seem out of place, as if they rather be somewhere else.

To be fair, "Mission to Mars" has some bravura moments since no De Palma film can be without at least one (remember the breathless long take at the beginning of "Bonfire of the Vanities," for starters?) A tense sequence in the ship which is slowly coming apart due to holes in and around the exterior is a vintage suspense piece. I also liked the sand storm that sucks everything in its sight. And there is a nifty long take inside the ship as it rotates and we see all the different characters defying gravity. Still, Stanley Kubrick mastered those kinds of shots with far more finesse and control than is evidenced here. And that is it, folks. The ending is protracted and corny, including the sight of an alien that would barely survive as someone's desktop background in their computer. It takes so long to get to the rushed climax that all I said to myself was, "Is that it?" Can De Palma be serious trying to pass something meaningful and poetic in what appears to be a video game sequence that would not make it any arcade?

I sat dumbfounded and annoyed with "Mission to Mars" because everyone involved can, and should, do better. I know De Palma is trying to get back into the game with a box-office hit. "Mission to Mars" is the low road to desperation - unexciting, inert and innocuous. It is clear evidence that De Palma is temporarily AWOL.