This Bard is afraid to cut loose

SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed in 1998

William Shakespeare has always been a tortured soul to me - not a helpless romantic. Still, the vibrantly acted "Shakespeare in Love" makes the case that the Bard must have been a romantic - how else can one account for his quirky romantic comedies ("As You Like It") or his morose, romantic tragedies ("Romeo and Juliet")? He must have been in love with a special, beautiful lady to inspire such matters of love and death. In truth, he was involved with another man, but that's another story.

As the film starts, the actor and playwright William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is suffering from writer's block - he is unable to devise a story out of his new play, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush), the owner of the prestigious theatre the Rose, is threatened by slimy creditors into bringing in profits, and pleads for William to quickly deliver his play. William's loss for words miraculously fades once he sets his eyes on Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow), an heiress who is deeply touched by his work. His eyes light up once he starts to fall in love with Viola, and the play Romeo and Ethel slowly becomes the tragic Romeo and Juliet.

"Shakespeare in Love" is a fine film for what it is, but it is too safe and sanitized - the film constantly threatens to explode with passion and fireworks, or at least comically bawdy innuendos, and it always seems afraid to cut loose. It holds back too often, and the delightful, on-target screenplay by Tom Stoppard requires more rhythm cinematically than it offers.

The actors certainly are up to the task. Joseph Fiennes is like an energetic puppy dog, leaping around town emitting phrases and remarks with frenetic ease - he's like a younger Woody Allen without the neurosis. Fiennes also has workable chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow, and the movie shines whenever you see them exchanging glances at each other. Paltrow speaks like a British heiress but her smiles and frowns get repetitious after a while - the constant close-ups indicate that there are only two expressions in her acting vocabulary. Of course, if you have seen "Hard Eight," you might have seen a more quixotic version of what is on display here. Ben Affleck brings comic arrogance to a new level as a boastful actor who slowly forces the Bard to develop the character of Mercutio. Kudos must also go to Geoffrey Rush ("Shine") as the caricatured theatre owner who answers nearly every question with the dainty line, "It is a mystery." The show-stopper in all this is Judi Dench's remarkably authoritative, ghost-like Queen Elizabeth - it is a cameo, but when she appears on screen, the movie stops cold (or perhaps more warmly) with her titanic presence.

"Shakespeare in Love" works because of the acting and its profound theme about the love of theatre, summed up brilliantly during the Queen's speech at the end. Still, the film is static, though never lifeless, and with such an ambitious premise it could have been so much more. 

Loving somebody this much sucks

THE BIG SICK (2017)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I've seen romantic comedy-dramas like "The Big Sick" before. I have seen interracial romantic comedy-dramas like "The Big Sick" before. My cinematic memory of such films takes me as far back as 1992's "Mississippi Masala" which was a sweet-like-molasses romantic tale starring Denzel Washington and Sarita Choudhury as the on again/off again couple. Most of "The Big Sick" can be anticipated from one frame to the next. There are no major surprises or major revelations we have not seen millions of times before. That said, I can respect a romantic comedy-drama that contains sharply acute performances, memorable one-liners and a laid-back, unhurried style that strikes true romantic notes. That it is all based on a true story makes it even sweeter.
Kumail Nanjiani, a very sharp stand-up comic and actor, plays himself as he struggles in the Chicago stand-up comedy circuit earning a buck as well performing in his own one-man stage show that has limited prospects. He makes some money on the side driving for Uber. Kumail's personal life is tough, trying to deal with the Pakistani tradition of arranged marriages. His parents (Zenobia Shroff and Anupam Kher) want him to marry a Pakistani girl whom they invite to the family home for dinner. Naturally it is never just one hopeful Pakistani girl, it is a never-ending stream of them. In a nice touch to this oft-told tale, Kumail keeps photos of every girl his parents bring in a cigar box. Why? I guess in case there is one he might consider? Nope, probably not.

One night during one of Kumail's stand-up acts, he is heckled by a blonde patron in the audience named Emily (Zoe Kazan). Of course, her heckle is nothing more than "Woo-Hoo!" but Kumail tells her that any heckle, positive or not, is a no-no. Before you know it, these two are already fornicating on their first date, no surprise. Emily can't handle complicated romances since she is busy studying to become a therapist at the University of Chicago. Despite Kumail's two-day rule of not dating anyone past two days, the two become a romantic pair. Need I point out the other complications? Kumail's parents may not react kindly, you know that sort of thing.

After Emily is torn by Kumail's photos of his dates and the fact that he never told his parents about his "white" girlfriend, Emily gets sick and ends up in the hospital. She gets so sick she ends up comatose! Emily's parents (Ray Romano, Holly Hunter) arrive in town to comfort her and hope recovery is on the way. They want nothing to do with Kumail but they slowly start to respect him and warm up to him. Will Emily warm up to him too? Can Kumail get a second chance?

As the late Roger Ebert once pointed out, it is not what a movie it is about, it is how is it about. A slight awkward phrasing of words but the point is that "The Big Sick" still surprised me, still took me in for a mellow, entertaining comical ride. It also has shards of truth in it, especially Kumail's and Emily's first argument and other subsequent scenes I will not spoil for you (but you should seem them coming). Emily's parents are not one-dimensional caricatures - they are depicted as a married couple who have had their own complications and have risen above them. The fact that the parents are played by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano gives the film a real edge and unspoken philosophy about marriage. Let us not neglect the scene-stealing Zenobia Shroff as Sharmeen and Anupam Kher as Azmat, both extremely funny as Kumail's rigid parents. Once again, they are not one-dimensional caricatures - they exist on a different plane of reality as they are bound to their traditions and shocked their son won't do the same.

"The Big Sick" is written with a sure hand by Kumail himself and his real-wife wife Emily V. Gordon. They may pour in the cliches of this fixed genre but they also infuse it with their own humorous commentary on life, love, marriage and hope. The Big Sickness is not so much being comatose but that pure love itself is a certain sickness we can endure and rise above. After the film ended, I came away smiling and giddy and, nowadays, that is more than anyone can ask for. Kumail and Emily, give us more. 

Bah, Humbug this cartoonish ride into Hell!

DISNEY'S A CHRISTMAS CAROL (2009)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Charles Dickens' classic novel about the curmudgeon cheapskate known as Scrooge who on Christmas Eve is visited by three ghosts and then decides to change his future has been told on the screen innumerable times. The 1984 TV movie version with George C. Scott is possibly my favorite, right up there with the Alastair Sims version. I did enjoy the modern take with the Muppets that was light-on-its-feet with good humored shenanigans, which of course would be 1992's "Muppet Christmas Carol." The best adaptations have some sense of joy and magic to them, the notion that no matter how dark the bowels of Hell become during Scrooge's Danteseque journey to the past, present and future, everything will turn out okay. Not so with Robert Zemeckis's "Christmas Carol," a bitter, joyless and far too frenetic adaptation that is so remote in feeling it will leave you cold below 0 degrees, that is if you make it past the little cheer it gives by the end.

I would doubt anyone is not aware of Dickens' most famous Victorian novel so I will not attend this review with plot particulars. Jim Carrey voices the old miser Scrooge and does an exquisite job, not to mention Gary Oldman as Bob Cratchit, Scrooge's most dedicated employee. The problem is not the performances but the overall tone and photo-realistic animated approach that makes one wish it were live-action and not rubbery animation. There is little room here for nuance - the film is an explosion of unsubtle fireworks, the likes of which we have not seen from Zemeckis since the middle part of his "Back to the Future" trilogy or "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." What worked in those films does not translate well here.

Though Scrooge is meant to go through a heart of darkness journey, it is the semi-comical moments of absurdity that threw me off. In one needlessly extended sequence, Scrooge is reduced to pint-size and tries to outrun a couple of demonic horses while almost getting stomped at Mrs. Dilber's house (Dilber being Scrooge's maid). There is some "Evil Dead" imagery here from "Army of Darkness" that is too cartoony for my tastes. The movie grows repetitious with endless flying sequences through the town of London, swerving in and out of streets, rooftops and lamps, and thus never engages us. Nothing here feels vaguely emotional or tangible - it is all too engineered, too robotic.

Two scenes truly stand out. I love the jolly nature of the Ghost of Christmas Present and his reveal of Ignorance and Want as two sickly children who look like they need an exorcism (the fact that the Ghost withers away like a skeleton was a pungent touch). I also felt more attuned to Cratchit's sad state of affairs with his sick child, Tiny Tim. The moment when Cratchit seems to be staring straight at Scrooge even though it is a moment of the future is very touching and felt true.

I did not hate Zemeckis's take on the oft-told tale but I did not take anything away from it either. It is laborious rather than enthralling, soulless rather than enchanting. Carrey gives a good melancholic kick to Scrooge but the whole film is far more despairing than it should have been. It needed more magic, more realism, and less of a video-game approach.

Sequel sucks more than the Creeper

JEEPERS CREEPERS 2 (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed in late 2003

They sayeth the Creeper would come back, and he did. They sayeth the Creeper would emerge every 23 years for 23 days and sniff the victims he can consume, and he did. Now he is back for more. They also sayeth that the number 2 after any title is reason enough to stay away. To be fair, some sequels work and others do not. This one sucks more than the Creeper does.

The scenario involves a school bus full of arrogant, mean teenagers on their way to a big game. The bus breaks down after one of the wheels is struck by some star-shaped blade made of human teeth. Slowly but surely, almost the whole cast is picked off the ground by a winged creature out for blood. The reasons are not clear, though I would assume it is because the creature, known as the Creeper, hates these teenagers for their temperamental attitudes. Or maybe the Creeper is after one of the cheerleaders who is seemingly clairvoyant! Ah, but that would mean the screenwriters would have to think of a story to support all this nonsense. We can't have that now, can we?

The first "Jeepers Creepers" was an unsettling, often scary ride, thriving on atmosphere and sheer attitude - it had an offhanded meanness about it that recalled the horror pics of the 1970's. This movie is a travesty in every respect, and it has no respect for the audience watching it. The anonymous, insipid teenagers constantly bicker and tear their shirts off (except for the cheerleaders) and make such stupid mistakes that you'd wonder why Neve Campbell's Sidney couldn't come on board and teach these nitwits a thing or two about what to do in a slasher movie. Leaving aside an astoundingly good opening sequence, this movie makes all the mistakes of any horror sequel. We see too much of the monster and we could care less about any of the victims. There are Dolby-ized shocks and thumps and bumps every few minutes to remind the audience to stay awake. I've seen the future, and I hope it does not include a "Jeepers Creepers 3." (Actually, it does)

Watch out for them peepers!

JEEPERS CREEPERS (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed on Sept. 21st, 2001

I might give more credit than deserved but I must declare that "Jeepers Creepers" is, despite lapses in logic and plot holes big enough to drive a semi through, alternately chilling and frightfully good entertainment. It is a hark back to movies like "Fright Night" and "Return of the Living Dead" where good, scary thrills and chills, not to mention characters we care about, were central to our enjoyment. The film begins in an ominous tone recalling the open roadways out in the middle of nowhere of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." We see two kids in the car, Trish (Gina Philips) and her younger brother, Darry (Justin Long), leaving for spring break from college and headed home. There is the usual banter between siblings about former boyfriends, dirty laundry, parents and urban legends. One particular legend is about a prom couple that died out in the same road they are driving on - they were found minus a head and a body. Suddenly, a roaring, tootin' truck that seems to have come out of hell chases them and nearly runs them over. The truck disappears but later, Darry spots a cloaked figure dumping body bags down a silo. The upshot is that the very same truck that almost killed them is also there. Instead of continuing on their way home, Darry decides to go back to the church and find if anyone is alive in those body bags. What happens next is often terrifying, eerie and blackly comical - almost a horror-comedy but not quite.

"Jeepers Creepers" is sometimes uneven as it awkwardly balances itself between humor and horror. The first half-hour, however, is great, terrifically chilling fun since we are not sure where the movie is headed. When Darry ends up in the basement of the church, he finds bodies stitched together and decorating the walls like the Sistine Chapel. We sense the killer is out there and that he could be in the basement. The question is: what is this killer? In the credits, he is known as the Creeper whose murderous strategy is taken from the lyrics of the song "Jeepers Creepers." He is also able to drive a mean truck at fast speeds and materialize from one place to another.

Director Victor Salva ("Powder") does a splendid job of crafting what would normally be a poor man's Clive Barker freakshow. Salva knows how to milk suspense out of deserted roadways, dark basements, silhouetted scarecrows, black crows, and so on. Most of the movie is saturated in atmospheric details, a nice respite from slasher film cliches and postmodernist winking. There is a great moment where the Creeper assumes a scarecrow position. I also like the constant birdcalls from the crows, a reminder that death is nearby.

Surprisingly, the acting by the two leads is astonishingly good. We are not talking about prettified teens from the Freddie Prinze and Sarah Michelle Gellar school. Gina Philips and Justin Long create credible teenagers facing an unknowing, evil force. Their bickering, bantering moments are upstaged by moments where they simply talk to each other, understanding and sizing each other up. The film spends at least fifteen to twenty minutes establishing their characters and that is a noble achievement in this day and age of soulless teen characters who make self-reverential horror movie statements.

"Jeepers Creepers" would have benefited from tighter pacing towards its conclusion, less of a Psychic Lady character who gives away too much information, and less of the cops who try to kill the Creeper at the police station. I would have loved to learn more about the bodies that decorate the walls of the church and more of the Creeper's superhuman abilities. We are unsure of what to make of this creature nor do we know its ultimate goal. But that is part of the fun of "Jeepers Creepers" - its vagueness supplies the chills, especially in the final, haunting shot. Watch out for those peepers!

Mediocrity comes in threes

JEEPERS CREEPERS 3 (2017)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It is not likely to cause much fear in the hearts of men, the Creeper's visage that is. Seen mostly in the daylight, this bat-like monster is not that frightening or scary. In fact, his booby-trapped, bulletproof truck (you know, the kind of truck where bullets ricochet off of it when struck) is more fearsome than the monster - it would've been a nifty idea for Indiana Jones to try his hand at outmaneuvering it.

Stupidly set in between the events of "Jeepers Creepers" 1 and 2, the creature is back as it is still feeding time for the mysterious Creeper in the same town of the first film.  Sergeant Tubbs (Brandon Smith returning from the original film), incredulous at the idea that he is fighting a killer that is more monster than man, reluctantly joins forces with Sheriff Tashtego (Stan Shaw, in a largely thankless role) and some band of avenging outsiders who are ready to destroy the Creeper to smithereens. Meanwhile, we get some ragtag group of young bikers who get a little too close to the Creeper's truck; a clean cut teen couple who are ready for a CBS Schoolbreak Special than a movie; a borderline eccentric grandmother (Meg Foster, always a mighty presence on screen) who sees her son's ghost issuing warnings; and a few occasional kills to keep the viewer awake.

Number 3 in the Creeper saga doesn't have the velocity and ramped-up "Duel" rage of the first film. Some scenes of terror are sprinkled throughout but a lot of it made me wince (when did the Creeper update his truck with booby traps when none of this was evident in the first film? Also, did he not fly away with a victim at the end? Why would he return to this damn town? Why not just follow the events of the second film instead of doing a semi-prequel?) Writer-director Victor Salva has forgotten some key ingredients that made the first film a sweaty mixture of dread and unseen horrors: atmosphere as in showering the Creeper in shadows as a nocturnal presence (who can forget his whistling the title tune while approaching his victims), and characters with some depth of personality whom we can care about that builds the tension. Seeing the Creeper in daylight hours robs the monster of true horrific evil - it was best when he was in the shadows.

As for the supporting characters, Meg Foster's granny is the most watchable, the one I gravitated towards yet her character is left in the winds. What passes for character motivation on her part is digging up the Creeper's severed, still living hand and grabbing it that allows her eyes to turn white and see something...what? Nothing apparently. I wanted to believe for a second that she might've been related to the Creeper - that would have been a novelty. Sadly that could've been a curious novelty in a mediocre movie that has none.  

Animated Automobile Nostalgia

CARS (2006)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Pixar's latest animated feature, "Cars," is pure automobile nostalgia or perhaps animated automobile porn. If you love cars of all different sizes and shapes (and trucks too), then "Cars" is the movie for you. For the rest of us, it is certainly sleek yet overlong with a flimsy story that feels padded out to two hours. Still, tots and adults may enjoy it more than I did.

Set in a world populated by cars and trucks only, "Cars" begins with Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson), a bright red race car whose dream is to win the Piston Cup, the major prize for winning at NASCAR-type racing. In his latest race, he is tied with two other formidable competitors, Chick Hicks (Michael Keaton) and The King (Richard Petty), by literally his tongue on the passing line. Lightning McQueen is on his way to California for another race when he is accidentally let loose while sleeping in a truck onto Route 66. He is chased by the police in a virtual ghost town called Radiator Springs. This town used to be a busy section of a time long forgotten where all the cars would ride along the main highway for leisure. Still, the angry judge of this town, Doc Hudson (voiced by Paul Newman), sentences Lightning to community service - Lightning's job is to clean up the ripped apart road leading into town.

Meanwhile, Lightning makes fast friends with tow truck Mater (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy) and Sally (Bonnie Hunt) the Porsche who has a soft spot for Lightning. We have scenes where sleeping tractors are tipped over, houseflies are minute cars with wings on them, a couple of fast-paced racing sequences, a statue of a deceased car, and much more.

Director John Lasseter and his team of animators have invested a lot of ingenuity into the visuals and lifelike animation - it is clearly an astounding technological job. I like some of the personalities of the cars but, let's be serious for a moment, this movie is monumentally silly and didactic. And there is only so much I can take of Owen Wilson's voice, plus Larry "Get 'Er Done" the Cable Guy's voice can be monotonous. Only Paul Newman comes through with cynicism and humanity as the Judge that seems to belong to a better movie than the nostalgic one we are stuck with.

As I've said, kids and adults will probably love it. I am no fan of talking pigs or animals or cars in general (except for "Watership Down"). But on the Pixar meter of quality animated fare, "Cars" is still far below "Monsters, Inc.," "The Incredibles" or the "Toy Story" flicks.