Plodding alternate realities

 THE MATRIX (1999)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Looking back at my thoughts on the IMDB newsgroup reviews back in 1999, I noticed a few negative comments towards my lambasted review of "The Matrix." I never cared for it, never cared for the sequels and found the whole franchise to be a confounding mess. Sure, I love the idea of the distinction between reality and fantasy and when they can merge yet David Lynch I connect with more readily. As a matter of fact, at the time there was also the release of David Cronenberg's "eXistenZ" which I found more involving than "Matrix." I have tried to watch the original film again many years later and I still could not get behind it. The visual effects are impressive and immersive yet Keanu Reeves is too much of a bore. Carrie-Anne Moss I actually found to be a more stimulating presence but the movie did not engage me or excite me. Anyways, below is my 1999 review intact, with perhaps references to other sci-fi films that are not always fair but so be it. 

Original 1999 Review:

Has there been a halfway decent science-fiction picture beyond the spectacular "Dark City" in the last ten years? The mind boggles. In one word: no. And the senseless, monotonous "The Matrix" will hardly qualify as anything but pure visual candy, yet the candy will rot rather than cleanse your cinematic spirits.

In an unsuccessful attempt to make us forget "Johnny Mnemonic," Keanu Reeves plays yet another emotionless, stone-faced cyber hacker nerd named Neo who sells illegal jack devices for virtual reality games. It turns out that Neo is living in a world that is a virtual reality game itself, an artificially created environment designed by aliens in Reservoir Dogs suits, otherwise known as The Matrix. The Matrix designed this world to learn about...human nature? What makes us tick? Who knows, yet a group of leather-jacketed freedom fighters with superhuman computer powers (and sunglasses) intend to fight the aliens and prevent more humans from being...programmed? They are Morpheus (Laurence
Fishburne) and the attractive, interesting Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), along with the aptly named Cypher (bald-headed Joe Pantoliano). Later, it appears that Neo is in fact the Matrix...or so we would think. Yes, in typical sci-fi glory, the Matrix will restore the world to what it was before becoming a live-action computer game.

I admire directors like David Lynch who take us into Byzantine labyrinths - endless mazes with circular loops that ask us to make our own interpretations. But "The Matrix" is not that film. The movie simply
has an idea - the Matrix - but no story or fleshed-out characters worth caring about. The idea simply sits there while we watch fantastic special-effects fill every inch of the screen. There are some beautiful
slow-motion shots of guns firing and bullet casings grazing every inch of concrete on building rooftops - a keen reminder of John Woo's wild comic-book pyrotechnics. I also enjoyed watching the flips in the air and the frozen movements suddenly turning back into motion. If "The Matrix" were simply a financial ploy for an incredible, imaginative sci-fi picture, I would have said that I loved it. But the movie is an exercise in pyrotechnics, nothing more.

Instead of some intelligent dialogue and imaginative story structure dealing with the mysteries of virtual reality and real life, the movie opts for straightforward action, predictably formulaic
thriller elements, and bland characters. Keanu Reeves can't even smile or wink, much less emote any expression (What happened to this actor?) Fishburne, one of the most distinctive actors on the silver screen, mostly stands around and utters epiphanies about the state of the world. The one actor who stands out is Carrie-Anne Moss, who turns from a full-fledged kung-fu expert to a simple girlfriend for the seemingly indifferent Neo. What a sham!

"The Matrix" simply recycles elements from "Dark City," "Strange Days," and every other tired sci-fi thriller in the last year or so without investing any interest outside tentacled spider robots and kung-

fu fights. If this is the state of the genre now, what can we expect in a decade?

Moneymaking schemes by the numbers

 BOILER ROOM (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Recently on television, I had seen a program on the illegal activities of con artists, particularly those involved in get-rich-quick telephone scams. Some of these people operated inside rented offices or apartments and con people out of their hard-earned money, including retired folks who are depending on their savings to survive. The purpose is to obtain any and all money and the key is persuasion. That is the focus of "Boiler Room," which focuses on such con artists and how they can persuade anyone to sell on fictitious stock options.

Seth (Giovanni Ribisi) is one of these guys. A former casino operator in his own apartment, he quits trying to make amends to please his father who is disconcerted with the life his son lead. Apparently, Seth lied to his family that he was attending college. All along he had been running an illegal casino making wads of cash. Then he catches wind of a Long Island, N.Y. stock company, J.T. Marlin, that can make anyone into a millionaire as long as they have to drive to work their butts off. Seth sees this as an attempt to please his father whom he never seems to please.

Enter J.T. Marlin where the leader of the pack (Ben Affleck) convinces these new recruits that they can become millionaires and fulfill all their dreams as long as they make money for their firm. It is about persistence to make the sale on stock options ("Anyone who tells you that money is the root of all evil doesn't have it.") The Affleck character and the scene itself is a direct hark back to Alec Baldwin's powerful cameo in "Glengarry Glen Ross" where he tried to persuade the fellow salesmen to sell like if it was dependent on their lives. Only Affleck seems to come up short in the delivery, if only because Baldwin did it better.

Seth is intrigued by this firm and the prospect of becoming rich, and thus becomes a full-fledged professional stock broker. He becomes so damn good that he no longer needs his resentful boss, Greg (Nicky Katt). Seth also becomes involved with Greg's former flame, Abby (Nia Long), a beautiful secretary who makes $80,000 a year and supports her sick mother. Naturally, after all the success and wealth, things start to go downhill. Seth realizes he may be immersed in a fake firm, a "boiler room" or brokerage chop shop, that sells stock options on nonexistent companies. How will his dad feel about this?

"Boiler Room" is "Wall Street" with a dash of "Glengarry Glen Ross" thrown into the mix and it has a great cast of up and coming actors, including Ribisi's sad-eyed, clownish-looking Seth and Vin Diesel's hoarse-voiced Chris, one of the big moneymakers for the firm. I think the film tries a little too hard to seem hip, and the references to the aforementioned films by Oliver Stone and David Mamet respectively clue us into how mediocre and cliched the whole franchise is. Every moment can be predicted with precision, and we know Seth will eventually realize his mistakes and seek forgiveness from his dad. Some of these very scenes are extremely well-written, particularly those involving Seth's father (Ron Rifkin - one of my favorite character actors), a judge who doesn't want his career tarnished by his son's foolhardy schemes. Rifkin has a great line: "Relationship? What relationship? Relationships are your mother's shtick. I am your father."

If "Boiler Room" dealt with Seth's complex relationship with his father and his own inner struggle between deception and truth, we might have had a real winner here. As it is, the film is bogged down with far too many plotholes, including Seth's relationship with Abby that becomes fraught with complications involving the FBI. And there are later scenes between Seth and his father and another potential scheme that stretch credibility. I will say that "Boiler Room" is very entertaining and informative in its first hour, but it is the anticlimactic finish that makes the whole affair seem like a near-miss.

Trivial Heist Movie that should've been set in Inland Empire

 CITY OF INDUSTRY (1997)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"City of Industry" is one of the most mediocre of heist dramas, but its  mediocrity is a shame considering the talent involved. When you see actors like Harvey Keitel, Timothy Hutton, Famke Janseen and Stephen Dorff, along with seasoned director John Irvin, you would think the film would be a tinge superior than the norm. But no, this plays like any kind of shoot-em' up thriller you

might catch on cable at 3 am.

Keitel plays a seasoned thief named Roy Egan. He chain smokes and likes to wear an undershirt while sporting sunglasses. His brother (Timothy Hutton) has set up a heist at a jewelry store. The partners include the hot-headed, psychotic Skip Kovich (Stephen Dorff) and Jorge Montana (Wade Dominguez), a devoted family man who is about to go to jail. Jorge is so devoted that he tells his kids he will
talk to them about a puppy. Jorge loves his wife (played by Famke Janseen) but not enough to stick around at home and avoid trouble. They all plan the heist perfectly. Then there is the robbery. And, without hesitation, there is a double-cross. Now, most film buffs will recognize Dorff as the psycho who wants all the money to himself. No surprise there. Keitel narrowly avoids getting shot, and wants revenge. He spends the rest of the movie beating people to a bloody pulp and shooting any and anything in his way. A performance built on seething angered looks and occasional outbursts of violence is not what I would expect from the actor who appeared in "Bad Lieutenant."

Keitel's Roy Egan is so stolid and thin a character that I could barely care much about him. At least Janseen invests more passion into her character - you almost assume she could be a real person. Her scenes with Keitel were so good that one wishes the screenplay gave them more to do. Instead we get a few shootouts, an explosion or two, more shootouts, and, well, yawn if you have seen all this before.

"City of Industry" is a straightforward heist drama with barely any of the postmodern irony that has reduced the crime genre to a cartoonish version of itself. Unfortunately, just because this is not the latest Tarantino flavor of the month doesn't make it any better. This movie is bereft of any intelligence,
wit or decent dialogue. Keitel basically plays the Terminator, occasionally uttering lines like "I am the police." He is as interesting as a stone sculpture. Only the visually enticing shots of the outskirts of the city have any life to them. Irvin might be saying that all those smokestacks and factories
are more alive than the noir protagonists who inhabit this movie. I believe he is right.

Paul's Deadly Science Project could win first prize

 THE MANHATTAN PROJECT (1986)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

When high-school teenager Paul, a science buff, builds an atomic bomb, he doesn't have the help of an entire community like Oppenheimer did. Paul relies on just a few pals, his girlfriend, an Army soldier with some C4, and off he goes in a garage building a nuclear device. It also helps to acquire plutonium from an alleged medical facility. "The Manhattan Project" is not kiddie fare though, this is a serious, scary thriller with some needlepoint comical bits thrown in for good measure. 

Paul (Christopher Collet) is a brainiac who also indulges in high school practical jokes that are a little, shall we say, explosive. When Paul's mother meets a physicist, Dr. Mathewson (John Lithgow), who has security clearance at a new atomic facility (Medatomics, disguised as a medical facility), the kid finds out the truth about this lab where four-leaved clovers grow in exponential numbers. He tells his aspiring journalism girlfriend Jenny (Cynthia Nixon) about this place and, during an electrical storm, they break in and he steals a canister of plutonium! This is not to power a time-travelling Delorean, oh no sir, this is to build an atomic device that could blow up more than just a single city. Paul builds the device, slowly but surely, using C4, salad bowls as reflectors and a simple car key for igniting the firing circuits. "It's very pretty," says Dr. Mathewson. "Now let's dismantle it." Ah, not so fast.

Understanding the motives behind Paul's decision to create a weapon of this magnitude is tricky. Paul insists to Jenny that it will help reveal what this lab in the middle of the woodsiest sections of Ithaca, New York is really up to. All she has to do is write an article and take pictures. Of course, this could end up being dangerous for them, the community, if not the world (Dr. Mathewson warns Paul that he could start a war). If Paul really just wanted to reveal the truth of this lab, why not just show the plutonium to the local authorities? Was it necessary to build a bomb with plutonium that could do far worse damage than Hiroshima? I don't think Paul ever intends to blow anyone up whereas some critics, Leonard Maltin for one, thought that we were meant to be rooting for him! Not to blow up the world I'd think because Collet shows the naivete of this otherwise intelligent kid who can't outsmart every adult. 

Regardless of motivations, "The Manhattan Project" is energetically directed by Marshall Brickman and crisply written by Brickman and Thomas Baum. The acting is top notch in all departments, including the small yet pivotal role of Paul's worrying mother, Elizabeth (Jill Eikenberry). The suspense at the climax will be enough to make you sweat more than profusely - you'll be drowning in it. "Manhattan Project" may keep you up at night. It did for me back in the 80's.  

REM sleep study induces anxiety

DREAMSCAPE (1984)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Some movies rush by on mere adrenaline, cramming in as much as they can to sustain interest. "Dreamscape" is an unusual thrill ride in that it wants to throw everything at us...including the kitchen sink. It is sort of fun and sort of works on the level of an original sci-fi adventure and a slight love story thrown in to boot but, by the end, the overall effect of the plot is a tad underwhelming.

Psychics with the ability to enter other people's dreams is a surefire concept and it has the perfect actor to make us think he can do it, Dennis Quaid. Quaid is Alex Gardner, a gifted young man who uses his psychic abilities at the racetrack and, unsurprisingly, always picks the winner. He also charms the ladies though I imagine his elvish grin and ingratiating charm would work without his otherworldly talents, but what do I know. While he's dealing with anxious bookies aware of his top-notch ability to pick the winning horse, Alex escapes and winds up being escorted by two men to an academic facility. Alex reunites with Dr. Paul Novotny (Max von Sydow), who has been researching dreams where someone can psychically enter another person's dreams - both participants have to be sleeping and linked by computer and lots of wires. Alex ran away from the institution when he was 19 yet the doctor insists that the willful Alex work with him in this "government-funded" project. 

Other than the dreams and nightmares themselves (some are more vivid and frightening than others; the sex dream where one impotent participant sees his wife in relations with his brother is not even good for a laugh), the main plot deals with the President of the U.S. (Eddie Albert) who has nightmares about a nuclear holocaust and wants to get rid of nukes in some sort of treaty with the Soviet Union. Enter Christopher Plummer as some mysterious, powerful government agent who has taken over this dream project for clearly evil purposes. If someone can enter another person's dream, maybe they can kill that person...for real! I guess scientific research always becomes part of a dastardly government plan, especially when the President has no interest in war.

"Dreamscape" is full-throttle fun but it does pack in too many characters and situations, leaving some moral questions about this research to the winds. If killing someone in a dream is morally wrong (especially if it results in actual death) then why does Alex decide it is okay to kill another person, regardless if they are evil? (Starlog magazine columnist/author David Gerrold, way back when, also asked this same question, and it definitely rings with discomfort when you think about it). 

Kate Capshaw is also in this film as a researcher who clearly falls for Alex though she resists at first - I would have liked more of a relationship shown between them. But then there is the inclusion of a Stephen King-type horror writer (George Wendt) who knows he's in over his head and is dispatched of rather quickly. There is also Alex's competition at the clinic, a clearly insane, Bruce-Lee loving psychic (David Patrick Kelly) who killed his own father - geez, why keep this guy at the clinic other than Plummer wanting to utilize his lust for murder. For a far too brief 95-minute run time, expansion on some of these characters and their motivations would've resulted in a more thoughtful film. 

"Dreamscape" will entertain no doubt with its fast pace and some pretty wild special effects. In addition, Quaid and Capshaw are a winsome pair, Max von Sydow provides warmth, David Patrick Kelly plays his most villainous role since "The Warriors," and Christopher Plummer is wickedly charming in his own way (He has a line where he says to Eddie Albert's President: "You can't touch me." I just wonder how powerful is this guy; Illuminati member?) The movie is still immoderately plotted and doesn't take any real breathers - "Dreamscape" has anxiety written all over it. The mantra seems to be, "Hey, get on with it," whereas I say, "Hey, slow down a little." 

Repetitive New York Story with a pinch of whimsy

 A RAINY DAY IN NEW YORK (2019)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I don't know if 2019 high-school graduates have an avid interest in Cole Porter, Akira Kurosawa and are such indelible romantics. In the world of Woody Allen that has often been set in the iconic city of New York, this has been the case but not with such obvious romanticism from such a younger mindset. Woody Allen's "A Rainy Day in New York" is a romantic souffle with not enough ingredients to keep us happily giddy. It never feels authentic enough to the Woodster's own brand of neurosis or pseudo-intellectual conversations - the trick in the past was that such conversations on topics of existentialism and Marshall McLuhan ("Annie Hall" devotees out there?) sounded pseudo-intellectual or at least to another character. When these characters speak of rainy days in carriages and Cole Porter, it feels like carbon-copy Woody Allen.

That is not say that "A Rainy Day in New York" is a total washout - it is lively and whimsical enough to sustain one's interest. Right from the start, I was convinced I heard Woody Allen's voice narrating the film when in fact it is Timothée Chalamet as Gatsby (who names anyone Gatsby nowadays?), a college kid with a high IQ and the luck of the draw when gambling. He is eager to take his girlfriend, Ashleigh (Elle Fanning, playing one of the ditziest girls I've ever seen in a Woody Allen flick), an overzealous journalism major who is about to interview a major Hollywood director she loves; he makes movies with titles like "Winter Memories" and hates them when he first screens them (sound about right). The lovely couple travel to New York and encounter a few mishaps here and there. One involves Gatsby running into his ex-girlfriend's sister (Selena Gomez), who makes it clear that Gatsby used to be rated less than a 7 by his ex (some of that gets a little tired). Gatsby runs into all sorts of friends from his past though one in particular was hilarious, a deeply obnoxious pre-med student (Ben Warheit) who seems to hate everything and has no kind words about anyone as he laughs merrily (I know he's obnoxious but I would have loved to have seen more of him). When Gatsby runs into his parents (the authoritative Cherry Jones plays his mother) and there is some forced nonsense about an escort (an Allenism from the past), I was more lost in this New York than entranced.  

Elle Fanning, an actress deserving a lot more than this cursory role, is adrift in this movie - she has innocence but it seems forced, and her Ashleigh is never more than just hastily defined as someone with no real fundamental thoughts of her own (her hiccups did induce a few laughs). Gatsby loves her, to be sure, but he dismisses her a little too prematurely just because she doesn't know the difference between a Cole Porter lyric and a Shakespeare quote. Again, is this how easily dismissive young people are nowadays? Bury that thought. 

"A Rainy Day in New York" is not as enlightening or as sweet-tempered as many of Woody Allen;'s earlier films on relationships - "Annie Hall" or anything he did with Diane Keaton or Mia Farrow need not be exclusively mentioned, it is hardly as rhapsodic as "Sweet and Lowdown." I guess I am just tired of an arrogant, aloof Woody Allen-type and I'd like the Woodster to branch out as he did with "Midnight in Paris" or the sublime "Blue Jasmine." Bring back some level of original eccentricity beyond faux N.Y.C neurosis.

Chicago Outfit were not Goodfellas

 BACK HOME YEARS AGO: 

THE REAL CASINO (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Martin Scorsese's "Casino" has grown in stature since its middling 1995 theatrical release and has become something of a mob classic. Some feel it is on equal par with hsi other mob film, "GoodFellas" while others think it is not as great, etc. Director Joseph F. Alexandre shot this often absorbing documentary, "Back Home Years Ago: The Real Casino," and interviewed a few of the people who knew the real-life characters that "Casino" was based on. It is fascinating doco but somehow too short for its own good. 

"The Real Casino" has a split structure, one focusing on the Chicago natives who knew these mob guys (some of what they say is repetitive and cut-off abruptly before they start saying something of interest).  We do get what amounts to probably less than 2 minutes of Frank Buccieri whose own brother, Fiore, was partly the basis for Remo Gaggi, the mob boss in "Casino." Obviously there isn't much he wishes to say or disclose though I would've loved to learn more about him placing Frank "Lefty" Rosenthal ("Ace" Rothstein as played by Robert De Niro in "Casino") at the Stardust casino in Vegas. All these guys, the mob connections or friends of those in the know how, are shot in shadow to obviously hide their appearance. The second half is of Alexandre himself who knew some of these guys while working at a Chicago pizzeria. Then there is the documentary film crew who think this is all Hollywood gloss until they hear the witnesses actually speak and know this is the real deal. Joseph F. Alexandre is far animated than the crew, and when was the last time you heard about the crew discussing the documentary you are watching? Still, I would have liked less footage of the crew overall. 

Mike Guardino is one talking head I found mesmerizing if only because he is not abruptly cut off when he speaks. Mr. Guardino once owned a strip club, car dealership and other businesses and talks about Tony "The Ant" Spilotro (the mob muscle character, Nicky Santoro, as played by Joe Pesci) as a "bad man with no conscience." Guardino is the most fascinating presence in the film, if only because he seems natural and authentic in his speech and clarity (he makes it clear that these mob guys are nothing without their guns). I think a whole short film about him would've made for an exceptional documentary. His recollection of the mob and how they tried to infiltrate everyone's businesses, the "street tax" as it were, is a prime subject that needs more exposure. His observations of this underworld are memorable and chilling. Overall, if you are a fan of "Casino" or have an avid interest in the mob underworld, give "The Real Casino" a shot.