Who murdered Elisabeth Campbell?

THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Original Review from 1999

Recent thrillers have become mired in lurid details and overcooked melodrama. Some manage to be suspenseful ("8mm") and others are just plain flat and dull. Nothing can be further from the truth than director Simon West's "The General's Daughter," a silly, humdrum thriller purporting to be more than the sum of its parts.

The basic premise deals with the titled character, Captain Elisabeth Campbell (Leslie Stefanson), who is found strangled, naked and spread-eagled openly in front of an Army base. John Travolta is the Army cop, Paul Brenner, assigned to the case to investigate her death - he met her briefly when she fixed his flat tire. Everyone at the Army is a possible suspect, and the fierce Paul will do anything he can to uncover the truth. It seems almost every Army official slept with Elisabeth. And there are the incriminating S&M videotapes found in her basement. And there is Elisabeth's father, Gen. Joe Campbell (James Cromwell), who may be a key figure in her torrid past at West Point Academy.

"The General's Daughter" heads for the low road once the investigation begins...simply because nothing remotely interesting happens. Once the S&M tapes appear, they are whisked away violently by someone in the Army and never mentioned again. The introduction of Elisabeth's mentor, Col. Robert Moore (James Woods), a supposedly key figure in psychological warfare and alleged lover of Elisabeth's, is fascinating but is dispatched too early on.

We are left with many plot holes after every suspect is questioned - there are no answers and no logical spins. Instead, we get many red herrings, shopworn characters, and inexplicable motivations.
Travolta is one of the film's few virtues. He is charismatic, smart, unrelenting, and vigorous, if only the script was involving enough to lure our interest. He does have numerous one-liners and his slight tilt of the head and cocky walk are more than enough compensation for the thin characterization, just not enough to save the film.

Still, the central focus of the film should have been the relationship between General Campbell and his daughter. The West Point flashbacks are visceral and powerful but the film peters out with a predictable, anticlimactic conclusion. The theme seems to be that women have no place in an organization like the Army - they will be abused, mishandled, or worse, murdered. It's unfortunate the film does not stay true to its original convictions.

"The General's Daughter" is nasty and tedious, sacrificing illuminating story potential about sexism, murder, and scandal in the Army with absurd plot twists and clinical murder investigations. Once it is over, you may ask yourself: who was the General's Daughter anyway?

Jesse Owens hampered by Nazi propaganda

RACE (2016)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
Reprinted with permission by Steel Notes Magazine

80 years ago, Jesse Owens, a track-and-field super athlete, fielded a major upset at the Munich Olympics as he scored historically high scores.  The fact that this was a black athlete who managed to beat all the Aryan athletes with Hitler and Goebbels in attendance was the real upset. That game is at the heart of “Race,” a squeaky-clean, inoffensive biopic that short-shrifts Jesse Owen’s background in favor of Olympic politics. I do not mind an exploration of the racism of a tyrannical group like the Nazi Party that was forced by the U.S. to cater to someone like Jesse Owens, but why leave out major insights into Owens himself?

The film begins rather oddly with dark blues hues covering Owens’ Cleveland home, as if a dark cloud was penetrating his existence. What is this…a horror movie? Still, this section of the film proves most rewarding as we see Owens (Stephan James) readying himself for Ohio State University and though the family is happy for him, his quiet, reserved father is uneasy. His father’s reaction is understandable because Ohio State University does not welcome Jesse with open arms. For the athletes, the white players get to shower first, then the blacks. Everyone on campus (meaning white students) looks at Jesse with disapproval. Remember this is the early 1930’s, yet it is Jesse’s new competitive coach, Larry Snyder (a marvelous Jason Sudeikis) who doesn’t see color in Jesse, he sees a champion in the making especially after Snyder has suffered so many game losses. The coach wants to help Jesse to prepare by playing syncopation jazz LP’s; by tuning out the hateful, racist slurs slung on a daily basis by the white players and, most significantly, by knowing that beating scores isn’t as important as winning medals. That includes winning Olympic medals.

Suffice to say, there is nothing here we haven’t seen before and possibly better, but I am a sucker for inspirational sports dramas where the underdog overcomes hurling obstacles. “Race” is not content, however, with doing just that. We are talking the superhuman runner Jesse Owens here, the man who changed Olympic history and in Munich no less. Unfortunately, the screenwriters Joe Shrapnel and Anna Waterhouse decide to take one too many sharp turns towards U.S. politics with regards toa competition in Munich. We are introduced to Avery Brundage (Jeremy Irons), President of the United States Olympic Committee, who sees that participating in Munich will prove to the world that the Master Race is wrong in thinking they are superior to Jews and blacks. There is a lot of the backroom intrigue between select members of the committee (including a sleepy-eyed William Hurt as Amateur Athletic Union head Jeremiah Mahoney who wishes for a boycott) and the meetings with Goebbels and infamous filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl (who helped to make Owens iconic in her film “Olympia”). I am not saying I did not find this intrigue and political manipulation fascinating but it takes too much time away from Jesse Owens.

We sense a struggle with Jesse who has to work at a service station just to support his future bride-to-be and their daughter. Jesse also tries to win back her love after carrying on an affair. The film bravely doesn’t shy away from showing how the Germans allowed blacks to stay in the same hotels in their country while in America, segregation was still allowed. These moments punctuate the Owens story of surviving against all odds yet, aside from almost breaking his leg during a stupid stunt, Jesse Owens is presented as a reverent idol, a gift from the gods who ran faster than anyone and could beat anyone. But he must have had some strenuous coaching that went beyond mere rhythm to jazz albums. Once he is at Munich, he competes and wins his medals – where’s the training? I am not one for clichéd “Rocky” montages but come on! Jesse’s story is overwhelmed and undercut by all the political machinations behind-the-scenes. Even Sudeikis’ coach Snyder seems to steal the spotlight. For a two hour and 14 minute, I expect a lot of the triumphant human spirit of Jesse Owens and less, well, everything else.

“Race” is a clear-cut entertainment designed to promote Jesse’s wins, and it does that beautifully, but there is an overflow of Nazi propaganda that would’ve better served a Leni Riefenstahl biopic (which has yet to materialize in La La land). “Race” is slightly hampered by second-string subplots that divert from Jesse Owens (a somnambulist William Hurt is not what I call entertainment). The film suffers from similar problems that plagued “42,” a far more penetrating biopic about another legendary sports figure, Jackie Robinson, and the racism and struggles he had to endure just to play ball. There is one shot, however, in “Race” that took my breath away. It is a spectacular long-take where we follow Jesse as he enters the Olympic field and sees the crowd and a German zeppelin above and prepares to run, slowly putting on his shoes. It is all so entrancing and overwhelming, all from Jesse’s point-of-view. “Race” could have used more of that.

Interview with Diane Franklin: She Can Break Your Heart

INTERVIEW WITH DIANE FRANKLIN: 
SHE CAN BREAK YOUR HEART

By Jerry Saravia

10/2014: Reprinted with permission by Steel Notes Magazine

Diane Franklin has the power to put a spell on you. Few recent actresses, particularly from the 1980’s, have displayed such uncommon warmth, sincerity and sweetness, only to uncover something deeper. Most horror film fans know Diane Franklin from “Amityville II: The Possession” where she is pretty much the best thing in it. Her character, Patricia Montelli, has an incestuous relationship with her brother (Jack Magner), who it turns out is possessed by a demon. The most honest scenes occur with Diane, the only soulful aspect in a thoroughly misguided, uneven horror film. Not easy to play incest on the big screen, and few films ever uncover such taboo territory. 1982’s “The Last American Virgin” gave us a sympathetic Diane Franklin teen character who simply, as Diane puts it, gives in to a jerk and not the one guy we want her to end up with. Diane can break your heart onscreen but she also has expert comic timing, especially as the French exchange student Monique Junot in the 1985 cult comedy, “Better Off Dead,” opposite John Cusack. She is also not afraid to get wild and burst with bizarre, warped, cartoonish extremes in “TerrorVision” With a list of TV credits dating back to 1979 with an episode from “As the World Turns,” to her small roles in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “How I Got Into College,” to her lead parts in “Second Time Lucky,” Diane Franklin has slowly been creeping back into the Hollywood mist in the last few years. I am delighted to present Diane Franklin’s words here on her fascinating journey from TV to movies, and what that controversial ending of “The Last American Virgin” may actually entail.

1.) Let me start off with the ending of "The Last American Virgin," certainly at odds with most teen comedies of the 1980's or anything of the John Hughes variety. My contention is that your character, Karen, felt compelled to return to Rick's toxic charms (my wife Dana's phrase) rather than go with the good guy, Gary, because it was Rick who deflowered her. So maybe it was an optimistic ending for Gary who pined for Karen - at least he knows that love is not always lasting with perhaps the wrong person. Your thoughts?


Oh, I love this question! On the surface "Virgin" reads as soft core titillation. It lures the male teen audience with the promise of nudity, drugs and sex. That would be enough to bring in an audience. But then we discover more things about "Virgin"; it’s an 80's time-capsule complete with colorful dress styles, awesome 80’s music, 80's culture including cocaine use, abortion practice and up-beat energy. Of course "Virgin's" ending is crushing. That said, why would filmmaker, Boaz Davidson, make the ending to this crazy teen-sex comedy so…um…depressing? Well, "Virgin" is based on a true-life story. All the events in the film really happened to him as a teen growing up in Israel. But just because it’s truthful, doesn’t mean producers would want to put it in a film. I mean, "Virgin" is not a documentary. It’s a narrative about 3 guys trying to get laid! So why would producers, Golan and Globus, ever agree to do this ending? "Virgin" is a remake of an Israeli film titled, "Lemon Popsicle," which was a huge hit in Israel, so much so they produced several sequels thereafter. Golan and Globus assumed American audiences would share the same cultural sensibilities: Good things and bad things happen in life – just accept it. No judgment. No moral to the story As Boaz has said in many interviews regarding the last scene of "Virgin," 'well…that’s life.’

 Now, I enter the picture, a 19 year old, American born actress, raised by first generation immigrant parents.  I read the script and immediately thought “I love this script! My storyline is so real, but they are gonna change the ending, right?” That’s when I learned I was the actress, not the writer. And though personally, I would not have made the choice Karen did, I had to find a way to make it work. I needed to justify Karen’s actions emotionally, and make her as likable as possible so you’d want her to wind up with Gary. So I said to myself “under what circumstances would I do what she did?” and then I realized something. We don’t know anything about Karen. We never see the inside of her house, meet her parents, find out her interests. She is just the girl. Her identity was based on what guys thought of her. I always imagined Karen like a feather in the wind. Whatever guy was nice to her in the moment she’d gravitated to. So, when Rick gives her attention, she turns to him, and when Gary helps her out, she goes with him.  So, when we find Rick kissing Karen in the kitchen at the end, I always felt like he made the move and she gave in. She’s not two-faced, or manipulative. She simple allows it to happen. Then Gary walks in. She feel bad, she doesn’t have the strength to step away. She waits. This is the point, in an American story that the good guy stands up to the bad guy and gets the girl, right? (I mean, even Lane dueled Ricky with ski poles in "Better Off Dead.") But in "Virgin" this does not happen. Gary is hurt and walks out. So, as an American audience we have this conflicting feeling: I thought this was the "Last American Virgin"! Why doesn’t he stand up and fight?! Then when Gary walks away, in the end, crying, and the credits roll, the American audience gets the final punch in the heart. “Bitch!” I can hear it now. It’s not Karen they’re mad at, it’s “where’s my happily-ever-after!? Where’s my uplifting message about never giving up?! Wait, the bad guy won!!?” This film hits us in our core beliefs, but that is what makes "Virgin" memorable. It runs so much deeper than just titillating teen entertainment. Virgin will never be forgotten. It is an iconic part of American 80's cinema.

2.) I do not think "Last American Virgin" could be made today, in light of our post-AIDS era and the portrait of wild, unruly teens having unprotected sex and only worrying about crabs.

I had heard a couple of years ago that Boaz was thinking of doing a remake of LAV, but I have not heard an update since. I think a remake would be amazing if the film had 3 things: A contemporary soundtrack; contemporary style clothing and set design; and lastly, references to the profound influence technology has had on how teens learn about sex, (sexting, hooking-up sites, wikipedia and yes, internet porn.) Of course, nothing will ever compare to the original LAV. That film is held in the hearts of the first generation who grew up with it. But that was our time capsule. Every teen generation needs a film like this. I actually think a remake would be a visionary idea. The characters are timeless archetypes. The story can change to fit today’s world. (and yes, keep the ending.) It’s one of the few films that teaches sex (and love) education to guys. And, oh yeah, one more thing… I have to do a cameo ;)

3.) I noticed a lot of theatrical films you were in were not necessarily box-office hits but later became cult films. Is it possible that you were ahead of your time? I think, for example, "Better Off Dead" might fare better today because its jagged rhythms were at odds with most mainstream 80's comedies. You stress in your autobiography that playing a firm, loving yet self-assured woman in that film stood out from the rest of the teen comedies, daring yourself to be different. Having been a teenager in the 1980's, conformity was deemed essential (though I never did fit in with anyone) and being different was a hindrance yet you claim that your experience was different.

Well, here is my story, I was raised by elderly, immigrant parents so right from the start I was NOT part of the mainstream. There was no way in heck I was going to fit in with my hand-sewn clothes, and my short curly hair, but I didn’t care. I just wanted to act! So in school I just was myself. Buuut… part of acting professionally is fitting into a bigger scale social acceptance circle – advertising and entertainment standards. What does an American girl eating a burger look like? How does a teen’s voice sound when she’s talking about acne medicine? What’s mainstream and what’s not? I knew this was not me. It was a role. And if I wanted to work I needed to learn to fit in. I watched the world around me and tried to imitate it; straightening my hair, finding fashion tips in magazines, and wearing the highest platform shoes I could to compensate for my height. Then, as my character Monique Junet put it “I had a small taste of success,” I started to work. Bit by bit I started to get acting parts, commercials, modeling jobs.

But nothing big clicked. Something was missing. Then I get this audition for a lead in a film. I had no time to prepare, so I rush uptown with frizzy hair and flats. And that’s how I booked "The Last American Virgin." After that, I got lead after lead. And what did I learn? That whether it’s school, work or just being in the world, fitting in is a skill to learn, but it will only take you so far. If you are true to yourself, you will succeed in a much better way, and make the right frieeennndddzzz.

4.) In your autobiography, you mentioned that in the late 80's, you didn't even have to audition for a part in anything - your name carried enough weight. Aside from a few exceptions such as director Savage Steve Holland casting you in "Better Off Dead" and being cast as an evil babysitter in "Summer Girl," it seems that very few casting agents saw you beyond the girl-next-door or the token vulnerable girlfriend part (Matlock episode "The Court Martial" comes to mind). What roles did you hope to be considered for, and what part were you up for only to be rejected in the TV series "AfterMash"? 

Mmmm… I have answered this question recently, so I don’t want to repeat myself. My daughter has kept me acting over the last decade. Whenever she needs an adult woman, mom or even grandma I was there for her. But now she just started college, so I have to find my own roles now. I have a great agent who is sending me on auditions, so we will see what happens ;) A more fun question is what would the reader like to see me play today? An investigator? lawyer? doctor? A Mrs. Robinson-type character in a nighttime drama? Or perhaps, a character in a time-period piece or sci-fi show? Or what about a raw and gritty character role on HBO or Showtime? And then of course there is guest-starring on a sitcom as a French teacher? So, reader, if you are into it, Friend me on FB (B&W photo from Better Of Dead – that’s me) and let me know what shows/roles you’d like to see me in? But, be honest. You’re the casting director!!

5.) When it comes to actresses cast in horror films, particularly those where their characters face a horrific demise, there can be more obsessive fans coming out of the woodwork. Since you played Patricia Montelli in "Amityville II: The Possession" where your character is killed by her brother, do you find that role garners more attention overall, positive and/or negative?

"Amityville II: The Possession" is a film that does push the limits. The subject of incest attracts interest. There are fans who are attracted to my character, and those who are repulsed by what I go through in the story. Some viewers have empathy for my character, or found me so real it gave them nightmares. I have heard people say they thought it’s the best Amityville film and compare it with "The Exorcist," while others love the fact that it is based on a true story.  And, of course, for some the incest story rings true, and find solace in it being addressed in a film. Regardless the reason, the character of Patricia Montelli has left a strong impression on those who have seen the film, and I have found fans to be reverent and respectful to me as well as the subject matter.










6.) Any word on the progress of the TV series "Parole Officers" which, correct me if I am wrong, hasn't been aired yet?

Funny you should ask. Director/writer Adam Ward just signed a television deal to air the episode to over 40 million people domestically. I am not sure what network but if your readers friend me on FB, I will post it there as soon as I find out. In the meantime, "Parole Officers" has won an award at the Pittsburgh Film Fest, and also was nominated for the Hollywood Shorts Festival recently. On another note, my daughter Olivia DeLaurentis has completed a new half hour film titled "Devon Bright and the Sensitive Boys." It is a hilarious boy-band parody that she wrote, directed and edited and was fortunate enough to convince her brother, Nick, to write and produce the music. I play a nervous, soulless stage mom, while Olivia cast herself as a…prostrate! ...no … prostitute;)
Enough said. I will post more details about it on my FB page.

7.) Were you considered for any other roles in the film "How I Got into College" aside from the stepmother?

 No, the great part was Savage just offered me the part of the mom, which was confusing to me at first. Then I read the sides… 18 year old step-mom?!  YES!!! Playing that role was so much fun. Watching those scenes today still make me laugh. Savage is just an inspired filmmaker!! He has brought a lot of joy to the world. I am so fortunate he cast me in multiple films.

If you would like to purchase either or both of Diane Franklin's autobiography volumes:  

An Occult Thing Happened on the Way to Connecticut

MYSTIC: A MURDER MYSTERY (TV PILOT 2016)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The opening shots of "Mystic: A Murder Mystery" show a young girl running around a park, narrated by presumably her older self: "Mom was always there for me. I called it Mystic." These shots build a certain innocence and unease.  A burning boat is seen at night. Voices scream on the soundtrack, one sounds like a girl screaming, "Help me, Mom, please! MOTHER!" This is followed by a John 14:19 verse. Murder mysteries can get Biblical but already the mood has settled in before the verse appears on screen. What we have here is "Mystic: A Murder Mystery," directed by Victor Franko, set in a fishing village in Mystic, Connecticut dealing with an Irish-American family and some deep secret that is only hinted at. Judging by the title that carries a double entendre, let's say it may have something to do with witches or the occult.

A young Irish priest has a sermon interrupted by loud thunder. Cut to the police arrive at a location where a homicide has taken place, for the first time since Christmas 2005. The two cops are unsure whether it is a homicide yet but they have a witness,  a girl in shock (Rachael Perry) held in a hospital after being found at a murder scene with her mother's body burnt to a crisp. The mother is Bridget Ashling (Tara Dion Machado) though we know next to nothing about her. A  painter of nude portraits, who is emotional over the death of Bridget, somehow convulsively paints a picture of the dreaded burning boat. There is also that creepy Irish priest who is seeking to provide communion to the young girl. The ghost of the dead mother caressing her daughter can send a brief chill to the spine. The aunt in one scene delivers an equally chilling, perplexing smile to the girl, who seems ready to vomit after seeing her aunt naked.

"Mystic" is a second cousin to the groundbreaking  "Twin Peaks," framing its individual characters in the town (councilmen, fishermen, bar patrons) within the confines of the murder of Bridget Ashling. Who killed her? I guess you could say the town is full of suspects and I've got my eye on the frightened daughter and the painter who is either overcome with grief or guilt. Either way, if the filmmakers can latch on to some of these strong actors (the young girl, her aunt, and the painter respectively), build up the mythology of the town and amp up the atmosphere, they might have one hell of a show on their hands. This pilot was shot in three days last November with the writer-producer, Frank Durant, already in tow with 30 episodes written and ready to be filmed. The pilot is being shopped around for a potential TV or web series. With the great interest in the revival of "Twin Peaks," now is the time to shepherd the mysterious strains of "Mystic" to the big leagues.

Cinematography: An Art Form

VISIONS OF LIGHT: THE ART OF CINEMATOGRAPHY (1993)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Lighting has always played a key role in film, both in color and black-and-white. If it wasn't for lighting, you would never see anything on film. But who are the people responsible for lighting, for setting that mood and that atmosphere, for showing us the close-up faces of our favorite movie stars? They are the cinematographers, also known as directors of photography. "Visions of Light" is not only a documentary of lighting techniques in films but also of the physical and emotional art of cinematography. In other words, it is about the actual movement of the camera and light to create the look of a movie.

"Visions of Light" details the visual sweep and grandeur of films like "Sunrise" and "Napoleon" from the 1920's with their colored tints and roving camera sequences to the more documentary, harsh look of the 1970's with films like "Taxi Driver," "Easy Rider," "Dog Day Afternoon" and so on. It goes as far as the 1980's with the candy colored look of David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" and a brief look at "Eraserhead," both photographed by Frederick Elmes.

The cinematographers interviewed and discussed are Michael Chapman ("Raging Bull"), Sven Nykvist ("Through a Glass Darkly"), Michael Ballhaus ("GoodFellas"), Nestor Almendros ("Days of Heaven"), Vittorio Storaro ("The Conformist"), Conrad Hall ("In Cold Blood"), James Wong Howe ("Picnic"), Haskell Wexler ("Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?") and of course Greg Toland ("Citizen Kane"). One of my favorite tidbits is from the filming of two Roman Polanski classics, "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby." For "Rosemary's Baby," cinematographer William Fraker talks how he argued with Polanski over a shot of Ruth Gordon on the phone whose face is blocked by the doorway. Polanski insisted on the shot and Fraker explains how the audience at a screening tilted their heads to the right to see Gordon's face! As for "Chinatown," cinematographer John A. Alonzo had also argued with Polanski over using hand-held Panaflexes in scenes that would ultimately be too distracting. That was Polanski's point, particularly in one scene where Jack Nicholson's Jake Gittes's character walks around a garden. By keeping the camera at eye level and from the back of Nicholson's head, we are subjectively involved in the scene and as curious about the garden as Jack is.

Also noteworthy and illuminating is the scene from "GoodFellas" where the camera zooms in and tracks backward (if I recall correctly) in what looks like a static shot between Robert De Niro and Ray Liotta in a cafe (the technique originated in Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo"). Ballhaus finally convinced Scorsese to try the effect which shows Liotta's world is turning upside down. Greg Toland and Orson Welles's arguments during the making of "Citizen Kane" are now legendary and are briefly reprised here. What I learned was how important it was for cameramen to make their movies stars from the past look as beautiful as possible, even in the face of danger or else the cameramen would be fired. The stars had to be perfectly lit and actresses, like Marlene Dietrich, would insist on certain cinematographers for the right look. Haskell Wexler's unflattering, cold and harsh lighting on "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" is the opposite - Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor certainly look ugly in that film.

The cinematographers provide insightful and entertaining commentaries on the processes of lighting and certain individual or collaborative choices they made with the director to create scenes, many of which are the most memorable pieces of celluloid ever seen. Who can ever forget the powerful scene of Robert Blake from "In Cold Blood" where he admits to his wrongdoing while tears seem to be running down his face, only they are the reflections of raindrops from the window (an effect that was apparently accidental). And how about the starkness of film noir or shots from "On the Waterfront", or for that matter, "The Night of the Hunter"? Or the deliberate underexposed shots from "The Godfather" movies where one could barely see the characters sitting in the dark? Or the mysticism and beauty of "Days of Heaven"? If there are any films excluded, it would be the work of director Stanley Kubrick, particularly "Barry Lyndon" which was shot using natural light from candles and special NASA lenses, an absolute first in film history. Surely some mention should have been made of that masterpiece.

Still, "Visions of Light" is a true movie lover's dream and a real cinematic treat. It is a reminder of what films once looked like and what they look like now, and how that look was achieved.

Make McDonald's Great Again

THE FOUNDER (2017)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Michael Keaton has a level of uncertainty, as if he is planning on changing something but he doesn't let anyone in on it. From characters like Beetlejuice and Batman to more austere, complicated individuals such as Daryl Poynter in "Clean and Sober" (my favorite Keaton performance) to Riggan Thomson in the unfortunate "Birdman," something gnaws at the viewer when watching Keaton on screen. He has class, elegance and style but he has a creeping sneakiness about him, not unlike Paul Giamatti who, even when he plays a nice guy, serves up with characteristic nuance a level of duplicity. In "The Founder," Keaton is a man unsure of his direction in life and yet very sure when a business opportunity presents itself.

Just in the opening scenes alone you can tell Keaton is uncomfortable with his lot in life - there is something bigger at the Golden Arches. As we first see Ray Kroc (Keaton), he is desperately trying to sell milkshake makers to no avail. Every stop in every new town leads nowhere. Kroc stays in motel rooms, tells his wife (Laura Dern) that business is picking up, imbibes a little from his flask after an unsuccessful sale and then he ambles on to the next town. But when he gets a call from McDonald's founders, a straight-arrow Dick McDonald (expertly cast Nick Offerman) and his sweet, non-confrontational brother Maurice (John Carroll Lynch, always excellent), about orders for milkshake makers, Kroc's eyes light up. When he gets wind of the fast-food restaurant and sees potential in franchise development, Kroc's eyes burn with intensity. Though the brothers are reluctant at first, McDonald's sweeps the countryside and Kroc does his best to get all the credit. And, boy, does he ever get the credit. He works fifteen hours a day trying to make sure McDonald's becomes as synonymous with Americana as homemade apple pie. Milkshakes made of powder to save money? You got it, despite the founders' objections. Lack of a major percentage of the profits? Work with finance guru Harry Sonneborn (B.J. Novak) and own the land these restaurants rest on! Of course, all this is objectionable to the brothers who never intended to make McDonald's a worldwide phenomenon.

As Kroc builds on the company and renames it the McDonald's Corporation, we begin to see a man who sells his soul and his first wife to gain stature as more than a door-to-door salesman. He craves money and greed slowly envelops him and his life, never seeing what it does to him. Kroc needs no justification - he is selling a brand and mutilating it at the same time, taking its family atmosphere that served the needs of small-town America and turning it into mass-produced hysteria. The roots of corporation grow and the film is intrinsically fascinating at detailing how such financial deals emerge, leaving those who created the brand with their own blood, sweat and tears in the dust.

Although the film never quite manages much insight into Ray Kroc and his faithful wife (why he refuses to leave her a slice of the money pie after their divorce is never clear), or why he forgoes a life with her for some dazzling blonde playing piano at a restaurant (Linda Cardellini, virtually unrecognizable, as a restaurant owner's wife who knows a good financial deal when she sees one), "The Founder" exposes the seeds of corporations taking over small business. Coupled with Keaton's powerful performance of immense strength playing a true sonofabitch with few redeeming values, everything about this reminds us of where we are now. If you have a soul, it will make you angry.

Leaves us in the dark

LIGHTS OUT (2016)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I suppose the one novelty to "Lights Out," a far too short supernatural horror flick, is that the silhouetted ghost can only be seen when no lights are on. Turn the light on, and the ghost disappears. Turn it off, and she is either scratching her name on the wooden floor or is ready to kill with her talons. This novelty can wear thin after a while but it does induce a few solid scares in an otherwise shopworn screenplay that feels undernourished.

Teresa Palmer is Rebecca, a young woman who is clearly into smoking pot and listening to heavy metal records (though the movie neglects to show her doing either thanks to a PG-13 rating. Taking this further, Rebecca has just had sex with her boyfriend after a segue from a horrific opening sequence but she doesn't remove her top. Yeah, right). Rebecca's grief-stricken mother, Sophie (Maria Bello), has a mental illness and claims to be talking to Diana, the aforementioned silhouetted ghost. The estranged Rebecca gets word of this from her younger stepbrother, Martin (Gabriel Bateman), who is scared out of his wits when he sees Diana! Since this event is explained early in the film, then it is clear that Rebecca's mother is not seeing things - Diana is real! Rebecca discovers Diana through old photographs and taped recordings and finds that Diana was a mental patient who was friends with Sophie when they were kids. The rest of the film has Rebecca and her boyfriend trying to thwart Diana and calm Sophie down. Not an easy task when Diana doesn't want anyone getting in the way of her conversations with Sophie.

There are a few good scares in "Lights Out" and Teresa Palmer, a terrific presence on screen especially when I first noticed her in the poignant "Warm Bodies," makes the most of her underwritten role. Maria Bello did not convince me she was suffering through a major ordeal - clearly, she was misdirected as if she just finished vomiting in the toilet. The character of Diana is also, pardon the pun, left in the dark and it only reminded me of the ghosts in the far more enlightening "The Others" from 2001. Diana is depicted as a monster from the start, including her growling voice in a tape recording that sounds more like the umpteenth sound effects outtake from "The Exorcist." Is that the way she sounds when she talks to Sophie? Who knows because no scene is shown of them just talking, which would have added enormously to the horror proceedings.

After the conclusion of the 1 hour and 16 minute mark (and five minutes of end credits), all you will remember are the relentless moments where the characters make sure to keep lights on, including car headlights, light from iphones, etc. It is entertaining enough to make one wish there was more to chew on. Based on a short film by David F. Sandberg, the feature-length film still feels like a short.