Speak softly and carry a big stick

WALKING TALL (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally reviewed in 2004

"Walking Tall" is the remake of a 1973 cult hit I can barely recall seeing. This new version is so pumped-up and full of testosterone that one wishes somebody cared a little bit about developed characters and a decent story. It has a good buildup, but it never materializes into anything other than an action movie with a guy carrying a wooden block as a defense against the bad guys.

The wrestler known as the Rock (aka Duane Johnson) stars as Chris Vaughn, a Marine who returns home to work at a mill that is no longer in operation. He is offered a job at the casino, a place that brings income to the small town. He refuses (I wonder why exactly if he needs a job. Oh, I get it. He is not crazy about his high-school rival, who now runs the casino). Before you know it, there is a fight a la Steven Seagal that the Rock instigates (believe me, he does) and he is left for dead. Then he comes back after a silly montage where he mostly sits on the couch in his parents' home, tears apart the casino with his trusty wooden block, goes to trial, convinces the jury he can walk tall (thanks to the scars on the chest), and becomes sheriff with only one deputy (superbly played by "Jackass's" Johnny Knoxville). Then there is the token girlfriend (Ashley Scott) whose last scene consists of her wielding a gun wearing a red bra! The running time is 82 minutes, but we only get half of a movie before it ends rather abruptly and too cleanly.

As I said, there is a nice setup with the introduction of Chris's parents, his sister and his nephew. We see the town has hidden secrets, like young mothers buying drugs in alleyways, a XXX theatre (oh, my!), Home Depot replacing the local lumber shop, and so on. The mill is closed, which means Chris's father can no longer work there. There is only the casino that comes equipped with strippers and slot machines. And as for Chris's high-school enemy/casino owner (played by Neal McDonough), well, it seems differences are set aside except for a brief intro where we witness testosterone levels reaching maximum capacity at a football game (another one of those cliched montages set to loud music).

I am sure the original version of "Walking Tall" is better (both are based on a true story), but the Rock has potential as a reluctant action hero with a sense of humor. He has ample moments to display both, but his Chris character is hardly reluctant - he is a big righteous bully who will take no for an answer. Sounds like he should be running for office.

Mad Max vs. British Redcoats

THE PATRIOT (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The Revolutionary War has barely made much of an impression in cinema history especially with the forgettable "Revolution" by director Hugh Hudson, a huge flop back in 1985. It only takes someone like Mel Gibson to give the audience what they want: a feverish action picture using history as an excuse for gangland warfare, which is what makes "The Patriot" a success. No quill pens, no rousing speeches, only an abundant supply of blood and guts. "The Patriot" is not much more but it has the potential to be more than it is.

Pony-tailed Gibson plays the fictional Benjamin Martin (based on the real-life "Swamp Fox" Francis Marion), a widowed father of seven kids living in South Carolina during the turbulent times of 1776, just after the Revolutionary War had started. Martin is opposed to the war, and is against his older son (Heath Ledger) from joining to fight the fight, namely against the British Redcoats. In one crucial scene, Gibson tells the people at a convention that why fight a war where there is one tyrant thousands of miles away when there are three hundred one mile away, or something to that effect. That scene resonates strongly but is soon forgotten in the way of grisly, gory violence.

Martin faces an ordeal of his own when the redcoats come to his home where he is caring for the wounded soldiers, and a sadistic, volatile British leader, Colonel Tavington (Jason Issacs), murders one of Martin's sons and all the wounded in cold blood. Now Martin is mad as hell and is in full-killing mode as he takes his family out of his home, now burned to the ground, and brings his sons with rifles in hand to take out twenty redcoats. The scene is intense and bloody as Martin, armed with a musket and a tomahawk, slices and decapitates with nary a trace of respite - he is Mad Max bent on an unending ode of vengeance. He also forms a militia, bent on destruction and murder all in the name of freedom from the British.

"The Patriot" is a revenge tale, as packed with thrills and action as one can expect. Gibson does this kind of role perfectly, and he exudes the humor and pathos of a warrior with a dark past as he did in "Braveheart." But I was somewhat bothered by the characterization, notably when reference is made by other members of the militia about Benjamin's days fighting the French and Indian War (he finally explains all to his son about his beastly, brutal methods). If Martin is such a ferocious, animalistic warrior, why is he so opposed to the war? Sure, he does not want his sons to join but why is he so unwilling to fight the fight? It only takes having one of his own family members killed for Benjamin to change his mind, but the one brutal scene where he tomahawks a redcoat repeatedly hints at other aspects of the character that the writer Robert Rodat and the director Roland Emmerich are unwilling to explore. There is a crucial line of dialogue, spoken in voice-over at the beginning, that suggest more levels to Martin's personality: "I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me." They have, but "The Patriot" does not cut it as a character study, it is pure action targeted to entice viewers, not to make them think about what war does to men. A shame coming from Rodat who explored this theme ever so briefly with "Saving Private Ryan."

As an action picture, "The Patriot" delivers in more ways than one. The performances also hit the right notes, including Tom Wilkinson as Lord General Cornwallis, who leads the British troops in the South - his battle strategies have always been exceptional but he has underestimated Martin's militia. I also like Heath Ledger, a strong young actor who holds his own with Gibson and does a fine job playing his son. There is also a nice throwaway role by Rene Auberjonois as the courageous pastor who joins the militia (as pastors did in those days) - if only there was more screen time devoted to him. The rest of the militia are depicted as stereotypical one-dimensional grunts. And Tavington, as played by Issacs, is so unredeemingly evil that I only wish some hint of humanity was placed there. He is also given the benefit of the old "the killer is never really dead" syndrome. Please, those idiotic syndromes have no place in cinema anymore, especially an ambitious action picture like this one.

"The Patriot" is fine entertainment, somewhat dazzling, humorous and exciting (watch out for that cannonball that aims directly at the audience at one point). There is an instant visceral charge to it, but there is no intellectual weight, and no true moral resonance. In its fervent patriotic spirit, it says that it was the right thing to fight the war and to die for your country to acquire independence. It just doesn't tell us why.

The Real King of Monsters

KONG: SKULL ISLAND (2017)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

No matter what movie you have seen with that iconic 70-foot ape that everyone loves, King Kong has always dominated and stole the show. Whether it was the 1933, 1976 or the 2005 versions, King Kong was the star, the King of the Monsters, the one we waited for in anticipation. That is the giddy fun of Kong and, essentially, any monster movie from the past 100 years. Following on the footsteps of the dreary 2014 remake "Godzilla," "Kong: Skull Island" is the second entry in this new MonsterVerse and I am pleased to announce it is a lollapalooza, a vastly entertaining jungle adventure movie that has everything you hope for and more.

Kong is back, and he seems to be taller than ever before. This is not the anatomically correct silverback gorilla from Peter Jackson's majestic, poetic 2005 version - this Kong looms large over the forbidden Skull Island. What is different from the usual Kong movie (excepting the 1976 version) is that this one, though set in the 70's, has Army soldiers (Sky Devils) who have just left the unwinnable war of Vietnam and are headed to Skull Island to aid scientists who believe something truly astounding is afoot at Skull Island. John Goodman is the leader of an organization known as Monarch and, with Senate financial approval, is finally able to bring his team to this island. Tom Hiddleston is Conrad, a British SAS officer and animal tracker who is up for anything as long as he is paid. Brie Larson is Mason, a photojournalist who has seen a lot in other countries but who can be prepared for what she will see here. Samuel L. Jackson, at his fiercest with those iconic angry eyes, is Lt. Col. Packard who is up for any mission that will redeem the disastrous war, at least in his eyes. The helicopters arrive as they dump missile charges to scope out the area. Um, big mistake since Kong arrives out of nowhere and practically kills all the Sky Devils. Packard is red-hot mad and wants revenge.

One of the few novelties in this film, perhaps tying in to producer Merian C. Cooper and his 1933 classic Kong film, is John C. Reilly as a former Army pilot from WWII who has been stranded in the island for nearly 30 years. He has become friendly with the natives and hopes that this newly arrived crew of misfits will help him leave the island and reunite with his wife and his son. Reilly is one of those actors who can muster a twinkle of delight in your eye - he makes you care because he is so damn benevolent.

As with any monster movie of extreme epic proportions, "Kong: Skull Island" does have flaws though they never intrude upon the marvelous action scenes. Reilly and Jackson have the most memorable characters on display, exuding plenty of charisma and sympathy for their plight. The rest of the cast is not nearly as enticing, though Hiddleston is always watchable as a tracker and John Goodman, well, it is hard to ever take your eyes off of him. Brie Larson is given nothing special to do except take pictures, including having the tribes flash the peace sign while posing for her lens. Ooooohhhh, how 70's. She has a couple of tender moments with Kong that made me wish they expanded her character the way Peter Jackson did with Naomi Watts in his Kong version. The Army soldiers are just generic types that you might see in the background of any war movie. Apparently, the director Jordan Vogt-Roberts was inspired by "Apocalypse Now" (among other 70's films) with the askew view of the Island I suppose standing in for Vietnam, but that is hardly a comfortable enough association.

Still, in terms of epic scope and the landscape of this Skull Island and its fearsome prehistoric creatures, "Kong: Skull Island" is more like "Valley of the Gwangi" (for my generation) and its Kong predecessors than anything in "Jurassic World." It is a heady monster bash and it has a prime sense of adventure and style - there is joy all along the margins of this film that makes it a marked improvement over that boring "Godzilla." The proof is in the pudding - Kong is still king in my book. 

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)