What difference does it make

HYSTERICAL (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

In the vein of stupid humor and slapstick pratfalls from the Zucker Brothers (who helmed "Airplane" and the short-lived "Police Squad" TV series during the 80's prior to their success with "The Naked Gun") comes "Hysterical," the sole Hudson Brothers 1983 theatrical film that got lost at the box-office and was largely forgotten for many years. A shame because it is a lot better than some of the similarly themed parodies of this time. No reminders necessary for the inert ineptitude of "Transylvania 6-5000."

A writer of romantic soft-core porn with titles like "Mouth to Mouth" (played by Bill Hudson) leaves the big city for the Oregon countryside in a town called Hellview to write the great American novel (how often have we heard that one!) Calling himself Casper (a ghost writer, ha! I actually like that silly name and, yes, I believe in the magic of sophisticated humor from the lucid pen of Ernst Lubitsch), he resides in a lighthouse that turns out be haunted by some vengeful female ghost named Venetia (Julie Newmar). The backstory of this Hellview spirit is that she was spurned by her lover, a married lighthouse captain named Captain Howdy (Richard Kiel), and killed herself as a result. Exactly 100 years later, Captain Howdy returns from the dead as a zombie. For some reason, whenever Kiel's character whacks people on the head with an ax, the Hellview residents turn into zombies who only utter one phrase: "What difference does it make." Say what?

For myself, despite how stupid and shallowly conceived some of "Hysterical" gags are, it had enough funny moments to induce a few smiles and some guffaws. Sure, some scenes are shapeless, including a few lulls involving the turtleneck-wearing zombies. The cinematography is occasionally poorly lit (there is a daylight sequence featuring two Hudson Brothers driving and you can't see their faces - wish they went the rear-projection mode as a throwback) but I did not care because I was still tickled pink by it. The childish humor and the outlandish shenanigans just made me laugh because of its overall tongue-in-cheek attitude, especially to homages of current films at the time and horror classics of the past. For example, two scientists, Dr. Paul and Fritz (played by Mark and Brett Hudson), both dressed up like Indiana Jones, are hired to find out the mystery of the lighthouse. Earlier, they encounter Dracula and eventually they perform an exorcism on the possessed Casper, obvious "The Exorcist" parody. No doubt the several typed pages of the same phrase repeated over and over is straight out of "The Shining." A nod to "Taxi Driver" was out of place, but so what?

There is one sequence that has some real zest to it - the Zomboogie dance (possibly the only time Murray Hamilton, repeating his role as mayor from "Jaws," has ever sung a song) which basically anticipates everyone's favorite sequence from Michael Jackson's "Thriller." In more amateurish ways, I can't help but think that Newmar's ghost is not terribly unlike Gozer from "Ghostbusters" but that is maybe just me. More than anything else, I love the clumsy blooming romance shenanigans of Bill Hudson and Cindy Pickett. There is an overall charm and a silly frame of mind to it all, even if not all of it works.

"Hysterical" is chock full of stupid humor but it is still not nearly as chaotically stupid as the Zucker Brothers' brand of comedy, but then again not everyone measures up to the latter's standards. Stupid humor makes you wince and also laugh at its own obviousness. One character on a bicycle (Robert Donner) warns every town denizen that they are doomed and he keeps getting into accidents - who is really doomed? If you don't like this kind of juvenile humor and prefer the zanily similar though unfunny "Transylvania 6-5000," then you are doomed.

For more information on the Hudson Bros., check out my wife's fully researched article: http://whatthehelldammit.blogspot.com/2017/11/strike-up-boys-in-band-time-to.html

Wild CGI-infested Kingdom

THE LEGEND OF TARZAN (2016)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The last Tarzan film I ever saw in theaters was 1984's two-faced "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" directed no less than by Hugh Hudson ("Chariots of Fire"). The jungle scenes were terrifically intense and alive, whereas the manor scenes of a Tarzan being inducted into civilian life were not as cheery. I have vague memories of Johnny Weissmuller's "Tarzan" flicks, the most prominent in my mind being "Tarzan's New York Adventure" which I remember we all loved watching as kids in a Montevideo, Uruguayan theater. This new "Tarzan" flick starring Alexander Skarsgard as the vine-swinging hero raised by apes has some awe-inspiring moments but it lacks bite and urgency.

Tarzan is now an articulate man of the Greystoke Manor - he even drinks a small cup of tea. He is also a married to Jane (Margot Robbie, looking hot and bothered like any damsel in distress) and they like to sit on tree branches and embrace and kiss passionately. Before long, Tarzan is called back into action by George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), a Civil War vet who is determined to stop colonialists from making slaves out of West African tribes. The tribes and the savage wild apes and other animals can easily destroy these evil colonialists but hey, Tarzan, the white savior, is needed to help neutralize them. Oh, and dare I mention the obvious of how Jane is kidnapped?

Of course, this is all silly - Tarzan was always the white savior, Lord of the Apes. I would not expect less unless they recast the role with someone non-white. The issue I have is the film has no real sense of joy in being - it takes itself too seriously. The CGI effects of a stampede of wild animals in the climax just looks too computery for my tastes. Even when Tarzan fights a CGI ape, I sense that the damage to Tarzan's rather slender body would've necessitated more than a few shoulder stitches. To top it all off, Christoph Walz is the villain du jour, wearing a vanilla ice cream suit and hat, and he is a disappointment - a man of few words as he hopes to scourge the Congo in search of precious diamonds.

"The Legend of Tarzan" is reasonably okay entertainment but it is so overstuffed and overcooked that I wanted more of the intimacy between Tarzan and Jane, and even the criminally underused Walz. Samuel L. Jackson is the bright spot, the comic relief of a war vet who has a hard time keeping up with the vine-swinging Jungle Jim. It is the only real surprise in this vastly underwhelming jungle adventure. 

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.