(An Interview with Scott Schwartz): He sticks out his tongue for no one!

An Interview with Scott Schwartz

By Jerry Saravia

Scott Schwartz is a child actor of the 1980's whom many will find familiar as Flick from A Christmas Story. Yep, he was the kid who stuck his tongue on a pole on a double-dog-dare - a heartbreakingly real, terrifically funny and memorable moment from one of the best Christmas films ever made. As a child actor, he also appeared in The Toy, a less engaging film with Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason which nevertheless features a winsome performance by Scott. 1984's Kidco was barely released theatrically and it seemed as if the same old cliches about child stardom applied to Scott Schwartz [he has returned to the movies in some low-budget films, such as Community College].This interview will shed light on what he has been up to since the heyday of the 1980's, some behind-the-scenes insights, his brief foray into the adult-film world, his successful sports and movie memorabilia store, and his forthcoming memoir.

1.) How did you get into acting? Were you discovered by someone or you auditioned for some film or TV show?

Scott Schwartz: "I got into acting when I was almost 9. A gentleman who knew me from going to the movies with my dad asked if I wanted to do a commercial... I did and the rest is history."

 
1.5) I've got to ask the most obvious question: how did "A Christmas Story" happen? And is this perennial holiday favorite watched at Christmas time in the Schwartz household?
 
SS: "I had just finished up shooting 'Kidco' and the director of the film Bob Clark had just seen 'The Toy' ... and he wanted to meet me for one of the kids, he wasn't even sure which character until we met and talked. My 'audition' was just a 1 hr conversation, then lunch and later that day I got the film.  I used to watch it [A Christmas Story] about 15 years ago, now I just switch channels unless a part is on I enjoy, which is never my scenes."

 

2.) "Kidco" is a favorite of mine, and my wife's. It was shot in 1982 and was barely released in 1984 [The plot deals with kids living on a horse ranch who decide to sell the excess manure as fertilizer, but their new company soon comes under fire from the state tax board]. What happened with the film that it didn't get the distribution that it deserved? And what was it like working with director Ronald F. Maxwell of "Gettysburg" fame in the 90's? I am wondering if that two-year gap is not a result of Maxwell's perfectionism since he has been described as having work habits similar to the late Stanley Kubrick.

SS: "The film was finished up in late '82, the film sat for a year but Ron Maxwell had some pull and we got a 'courtesy' release in Alabama the spring of '84, the same weekend as this 'little' movie called 'Splash' was released.. needless to say, we didn't get many viewers and the movie was buried. It was a small $4 million dollar budget and 20th century fox had no faith in the film, so that was that. Ron Maxwell was a terrific director, really enjoyed working with him. He was direct to the point and never treated us kids as kids, he treated us as actors, the same as he treated Charlie Hallahan (the dad) and the other adults. Would enjoy working with him again sometime too."

2.5.) I also understand "Kidco" was based on a true story. Can you tell us more about it and its influence on "Kidco"?

SS:  "Kidco was based on the Cessena family of southern California. They really built an empire cleaning up horse manure and killing gophers. Really sounds like a fairy tale, but it really did happen. Got to meet them when we did the film, they were in their 20's, NICE people !"
 3.) "The Toy" is not one of my favorite Richard Pryor comedies but I do think you were the most appealing thing in it. How did this project come about, and was it fun working with Pryor and Jackie Gleason or was there tension since they were both comics?

SS: "I got the film after 7 auditions and 3 screen tests. Richard was amazing, one of the most incredible people I've ever met, he was my muse from the day I met him till the day he passed away. It was a remake of a French film with the same name, at the time both Pryor and Gleason were HUGE names and someone at Columbia thought they had a good concept for them to work together. Mr. Gleason was just a professional. NO real tension on the set to speak of, it was a very professional set with the 2 of them however, Richard Donner the director (The Goonies, Superman, Lethal Weapon franchise) kept us laughing and having fun everyday. IF people think Richard Pryor is funny on-screen, off-screen he was quiet and very studious however when he got 'the juices flowing', he was hilarious."
 
4.) I read that you worked in the adult film industry and left claiming you got "tired of the industry." Did you want to branch out a bit, beyond Hollywood conventions, or was finding work as a former child actor difficult since it happens to many? Also, in what capacity did you work and why for such a short time? 

SS: "In the adult film industry, I worked for a talent agency, a production office, a video salesman... about any job you can think of I did but truly I don't speak of it too much but I will when I write my book. It came down to dollars and cents, it was paying my bills and it was whatever it took to take care of putting a roof over my head and food on the table, that's what I did. Being a child actor, while rewarding, is truly a bad job, we all grow up and IF the right people don't take to us and keep us working, most are out of work by 15-18 and have no idea what the real world is about. Not everyone at every job you have/get brings you coffee and a bagel in the morning, asks what you would like for lunch and takes you out to steak/lobster dinners."

5.) Any projects you had turned down that you wish you hadn't, and is there one project past, present or future you would like to see made with your name on it in any capacity?

SS:  "I never had the opportunity to 'turn down jobs' and I don't believe in that concept UNLESS it's just bad. I have turned down quite a few 'reality' tv shows as for the most part they aren't positive. IF someone wanted to do a reality show based on myself and our family collectibles business, that I would do. But 'child star gone bad' or something along those lines, no interest what-so-ever. And a book that I'm working on currently, I look forward to people reading it and really knowing and understanding what it means to be a 'child' star, advice about getting your kid into the business and my own life experiences along the way. It will really make people think and be more understanding and compassionate towards those they loved as 'child stars'... and a few other surprises as well." 

6.) I understand you are quite the sports and movie memorabilia collector, including having your own store called "Baseball Cards, Movie Collectibles, etc." This has been a love of yours since the 1980's. What is it about sports and movie memorabilia that excites you?

SS:  "I have always been a collector and a movie buff, so it just fell into place. My dad has had the business since 1987 and I've just come and gone from there over the years but the past 6 months or so I've really concentrated on the store as we just moved locations to Woodland Hills, CA. Our name didn't change but it's so long, the sign outside just says "Sports and Movie Stuff". It's nice to have a 4,000 sq. foot store to go to. I just really enjoy collecting things on people I know or have worked with as well as Star Wars (Darth Vader was my fav), Pride of the Yankees, Barry Bonds and Julius Erving (both have been good friends for several decades), Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles (Mel Brooks I can't wait to meet) and William Shatner, who I have met several times and just really enjoy most all of his work.

7.) Finally, name one film that is your favorite, or maybe one that everyone asks you about. 

SS: "IMPOSSIBLE to name 1 but... Blazing Saddles, The Pride of the Yankees, The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh, Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band (w/the bee gees), Rocky & Galaxy Quest ! The characters in that film are like myself and the kids from 'A Christmas Story'.  A lot of people ask me why I don't say one of my films ... I let others be fans of my films and I want to be a fan of others."

Finishing touches on "Psycho" and "The Departed"

CONTROVERSIAL ENDINGS in PSYCHO and THE DEPARTED

By Jerry Saravia

The endings of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" and Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" have created some furor among fans and critics. They are, in hindsight, not too dissimilar. What? They are obviously two different films but their endings shift and complicate what might be studio-imposed finalities into something more obscure, more ambiguous, more despairing. 

Hitchcock's 1960 horror classic "Psycho" ends with a psychiatrist (Simon Oakland) telling the family of the slain Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) that Norman Bates was not exactly a transvestite but a man who wore women's clothing to become his mother. He also interjects that Norman is his mother. Obviously, this psychoanalytic speech is silly and technically spurious. I sense it was put in there as Hitchcock's and writer Joseph Stefano's joke on the audience who need everything wrapped up into a tidy ending that put closure on the Norman Bates insanity. It also gives the audience comfort that such a killer can be categorized and explained away so that we know better than to enter a desolate motel in the middle of nowhere where a strange, childlike, candy-consuming, forlorn and androgynous motel owner exists.

Hitchcock doesn't quite end it there. We see Norman in his cell, staring away at the walls while Mother narrates. A housefly appears on his hand and Mother makes it clear she will not harm that fly, sensing that an eventual release from the nuthouse will be fortwit because Norman is insane (naturally, this was the case of the opening of "Psycho II"). Norman looks up at the audience and we have a superimposition of his smiling face with his mother's skull and Marion Crane's car being dragged from the swamp. This adds a sense of discomfort and proves Norman isn't exactly insane; he knows what he is doing and thinking. He is aware Mother is a distinct personality and he knows he is not Mother. But maybe he can keep fooling the psychiatric community. This is the ending that a lot of critics, including Roger Ebert, ignore or don't acknowledge. Sometimes evil can't be explained away with a stuffy psychoanalytic speech, hence the chilling last scene.

Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" has a fatalistic finish where the presumed bad guy, Colin Sullivan, the duplicitous villain (a superbly controlled performance by Matt Damon), a cop who has ties to the slowly derailing Boston mob boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), is executed at point blank range by another cop, the ferocious Dignam (Mark Wahlberg). Most would concede that this very Americanized ending was appropriate (it differs from its source, Andrew Lau's "Infernal Affairs"). After all, the dirty, corrupt Colin had it coming. And Scorsese could have ended it there, but he took it one step further. When we pan up from his body in a pool of blood, we see a rat running along a window sill and the shot rests on the Massachusetts State House (a place Colin is enamored of). This shot is foreshadowed earlier by Costello who is plaguing the undercover cop, Billy (Leonardo DiCaprio) with questions, making rat-like faces and drawing rats running rampant around the, you guessed it, Massachusetts State House. The implication being that the rats, the dirty cops, will continue to run and control everything.

I mentioned the ending is still fatalistic because I had sympathy for Colin, no matter how rotten a person he is (forcing his live-in girlfriend not to hang pictures of her as a kid is an example of a man not comfortable with identity or sentimentality). I feel sympathy because he grew up in a tough environment where he was possibly molested by priests as an altar boy, and had to succumb to Costello's control rather early on. Costello expresses hate towards everyone, especially priests with which he makes consistent references to with sexual and violent analogies. Colin wants to get away from the city life, as expressed to Madolyn (Vera Farmiga) in a bedroom conversation, but he is embroiled in his loyalty to Costello (Costello betrays Colin when he admits he is an FBI informant). Colin is a man without shame, remorse or identity - he was shaped and lured into a criminal life and environment that Costello helped nurture. So Scorsese could have ended with the assassination of Colin and showed us the courthouse. The rat adds an extra dimension and a touch of black humor, creating a fused symbol of corruption never dying.

Scorsese and Hitchcock have fundamental similarities in the films they have made.Their films are strewn with Catholic guilt, immorality, sexual inadequacy or limitation, occasionally graphic violence, a virtuoso display of camera moves, and antiheroes who refuse to justify themselves. "Psycho" and "The Departed" also play the audience like a piano, showcasing an element of surprise and unexpectedness in fashioning a genre attempt to fit their respective personalities. Seemingly obligatory, tidy endings, indeed, are more complicated than expected when it comes to Hitch or Scorsese.

The Legend doesn't hold up

THE 13TH CHILD: THE LEGEND OF THE JERSEY DEVIL

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia (original review written in Oct. 2002)

I do not know what is worse: knowing that Cliff Robertson appeared in this film or that low-grade shockers like this still exist. Back in 1996, we had the phenomenally funny "Werewolf," a movie so bad that Mystery Science Theatre even took a stab at mocking it. I wish they were still on the air because, without a doubt, they would have a field day with "The 13th Child."

Set on Halloween, and the days preceding Michael Myer's holiday, we are told that the Jersey Devil is out in the Pine Barrens of the good old Garden State killing and mutilating folks, including escaped mental patients! Lesley Ann-Down appears in this travesty as some attorney who hires an assistant D.A. (Michelle Maryk) to find the Jersey Devil and her long-lost father in the Pine Barrens. The assistant D.A. finds an old hermit named Woody Shrouds (Cliff Robertson) who knows of the legend of the Jersey Devil, and hates humankind since he serves to protect his insects and other species from humans at any cost. This protection of insects and animals does not extend to deer, who are shown in numerous close-ups as either dismembered or disfigured.

Shot on digital video, "The 13th Child" is a load of hokum with cheesy sound effects and the usual rumblings in Dolby Digital sound to remind you that something scary is about to happen. There is one tense, well-edited sequence in which a hunter sits in his truck chewing tobacco after killing a hapless deer left hanging by a hook in his trunk. There is no music or any of those synthesizer sounds - instead, we just hear the radio announcements of the Jersey Devil nearby. It works, and it is the only decent scene in its entire 100 minute running time. The rest is on the level of an advanced high school play at the tenth grade level. Amateurish only skims the surface - the actors on hand are puerile. Sadly, Robert Guillaume, playing some former cop in a mental hospital, would have done better appearing in a sequel to "Lean On Me." The dialogue is edited in such a slipshod manner that, at times, Guillaume seems to be speaking the lines without moving his lips.

Cliff Robertson displays some dignity and presence - he is a reliable actor who once played John F. Kennedy in the film "P.T. 109" and even appeared as Peter Parker's dad in "Spider-Man." By the way, he was also cast in "Charly" and in Brian De Palma's "Obsession." Since he co-wrote this garbage, he can be partly blamed for this atrocity. My advice: ignore the Jersey Devil and rent any of these other films. You'll have a better time.

P.S. I saw this in a theatre in East Windsor, NJ and there was only one other occupant in the theatre. He hated it as much as I did. 'Nuff said.

To Hell and Back with the Tarantino imitators!

SHOOT THE HERO! (2010)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Aping Tarantino crime pictures with oodles of self-congratulatory and self-aware irony has become such a cliche that any movie that tries it seems like it is shooting itself in the foot. Granted, there have been exceptions to the rule ("Things To Do in Denver When You're Dead" parades on irony but it was mildly exciting and its screenplay had been written long before Tarantino came into the picture). When another filmmaker occasionally tries to do a pseudo-hip-hop version of Tarantino, it becomes a cartoon that evaporates rather than percolates. Christian Sesma's "Shoot the Hero!" has a tinge more potential than it lets on but it lacks two crucial departments: wit and jeopardy.

When you watched "Pulp Fiction" or "Reservoir Dogs," you saw an alternate universe devoid of grittiness - it was a cartoon land of pulpy extremes with characters designed to live by their rules in their own moral (or lack thereof) universe. What made the world unique was Tarantino's engaging, ironic wordplay, his energetic direction, and his dynamic visual sense that gave the work potency. Also, the characters were big personalities that found themselves in dangerous situations beyond their control. Writer-director Christian Sesma aims for the ironic wordplay but almost no visual sense or big, colorful personalities or enough sense of jeopardy.

Take Nate (Jason Mewes, in an odd bit of casting), the nerdy guy who loves video games and DVD's but barely has enough money to buy an engagement ring for his bitchy girlfriend, Kate (Samantha Lockwood). He takes his girlfriend blindfolded to a jewerly store that is already closed for the evening. The owner lets him in, and suddenly a robbery is taking place. A double-cross ensues between the robbers while the unhappy couple bicker, hidden behind a jewerly case. Eventually, Nate proves his worth and knocks out one robber unconscious. The girlfriend is amazed. End of the first bit of narrative. Only problem here is Mewes is not believable; as a nerd, yes, but not as a fighter. The girlfriend is shrill. The robbery is shot with a far too shaky hand-held camera while a shooting takes place yet our eye has no idea where to focus.

The next narrative thread deals with the Smith Brothers. They are walking in the desert at night with two garbage bags filled with dirty laundry! Sound familiar? They come across some mercernaries who are partaking in a training session that involves guns a'blazin. The whole scene of the shooting drill lasts an eternity. The Smith Brothers leave their garbage bags out in the open while hiding and witnessing this drill. Cigar-chomping Fred Williamson shows up and what appears to be a semi-extended homage to the Gimp sequence from "Pulp Fiction" becomes so protracted that I lost interest. Nothing much happens except there is a quick getaway in a motorbike, and the brothers find themselves in the backseat of a car driven by...Nate and Kate! And then there is another shootout involving the Cleaners where so many bullets are fired yet so few seem to hit anyone. If you can't figure out by the three-quarter mark who the cleaners, by the way, consider the fact that we only see a handful of characters in this movie who bump into each other in conveniently movie-movie terms.

It is fun watching Danny Trejo as Crazy Joe, the big boss who is behind the failed jewelry heist. I also enjoy Nick Turturro as a hotheaded robber and Fred Williamson simply makes me smile. But the movie is shot in a slipshod manner with a camera that can hardly stay fixated on one single character long enough before you start wishing for the days of controlled hand-held camerawork from 1992's "Laws of Gravity." The camera is strangely too far away during some long dialogue sequences and sometimes it is behind a character's head (as in the car scene with Nate and Kate), especially in long shots or long takes where the characters' mouths and/or gestures clearly do not match the dialogue we hear.

"Shoot the Hero!" is one long, repetitive and drawn-out homage to "Pulp Fiction" and to anything by Robert Rodriguez (Sesma was inspired to become a filmmaker after seeing "El Mariachi") but it doesn't surprise us with anything we haven't seen a million times before. I admire some of the intentions of Sesma but he needs to write a better script or he'll be thought of as a Tarantino or Rodriguez wannabe.

Legally Inhibited and Funny, Coco-style

CONAN O'BRIEN CAN'T STOP (2010)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 Something historic happened on "The Tonight Show" in 2010: a TV host (Conan O'Brien) was booted from a long-standing franchise for poor ratings. Incredibly, the ratings did build on "The Tonight Show" during the late night wars between Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno, higher than most even expected. Still, Jay Leno, the former "Tonight Show" host and former host of "The Jay Leno Show" (also canned for poor ratings), took back the spot that he and NBC gave to Conan forcing Conan to be barred from TV and the Internet for six months with a 45 million paycheck to boot. So did Conan sit back and cry over losing the coveted "Tonight Show" spot? No, he went on a 44-city tour entitled "The Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour" and tried be funny despite being angry.

"Conan O'Brien Can't Stop" is a documentary that covers all the backstage drama behind the tour. What one has to remember about Conan is that he is sarcastic but never mean or mean-spirited - it is all in good fun. Whether he is insisting on firing his personal assistant for screwing up a fish order with unwanted butter sauce or cracking wise at the expense of Jack McBrayer's Southern background, or losing his cool temporarily over having to sign autographs or have pictures taken with his fans (many of whom have backstage passes to meet El Conando), Conan is all about having fun and about nonstop performance, and also about pleasing all his fans. Of course, you can see that his exhaustion is also symptomatic of how he was treated by NBC. He is also pissed at Jay Leno, and fantasizes receiving a phone message from Mr. Big Chin ("What is it like to have a soul?"). Everything is a joke to Conan, but it doesn't mean we don't see a man who is bitter over the job he truly coveted - he had to vent.

"Conan O'Brien Can't Stop" is entertaining and intriguing and director Rodman Flender doesn't back away from showing Conan's nervousness or his four-letter-word moments. I do wish we saw more footage of Conan's actual stage performances - mostly we get his country rock band performances (he performs ably with singer Jack White, and more than once does his guitar riff on "Seven Nation Army"). The film is essentially all about backstage shenanigans (we only get a fleeting glimpse of Conan's wife and his kids) and comedy tour bits, but it is all infused with the notion that Conan is angry. It is not at the amateurish level of a basic reality TV show - we are not talking about "Keeping Up with the O'Briens" here. One especially funny scene is when he is asked, on one of his days off, to perform for his 25th college reunion anniversary. The man simply can't stop.

Lucas at the editing table, again and again

STAR WARS SPECIAL EDITION TRILOGY (1997)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia (1997 review)

George Lucas' "Star Wars" is one of the great outer space fantasy movies of all time - it was, and still is, a gleefully exciting popcorn movie full of special-effects galore and chivalrous heroes, stubborn princesses, evil dark empires, and two cute robots. The characters were Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Darth Vader, to name a few. Now comes the special edition of this special trilogy of movies and, despite some flaws with the post-tinkering, they are a fond reminder of how groundbreaking these movies were and how they changed Hollywood forever. They initiated the term: blockbuster.

The original "Star Wars" was a major box-office success signaling the rise of merchandising and the wave of Hollywood blockbusters to come. The main difference between "Star Wars" and the so-called action entertainment of today is that "Star Wars" had wit, style and imagination to spare, not gratuitous action scenes and bloody violence at the expense of a story or characters worth caring about (See "The Lost World" for proof).

It is a sheer joy to watch this film restored to its original glory with its blazing colors, beautiful cinematography and the uplifting Dolby Digital musical score by John Williams. The special-effects are as awesome as they ever were, including the classic battle on the Death Star, the plentiful laser gun fights, and the lightsaber duel between Vader and Kenobi.

The actors are also rather pleasing to watch after all these years. Harrison Ford has as much fun here as when he played Indiana Jones and his constant snickering and witty asides are as marvelous as ever. Ditto the youthful Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia; James Earl Jones' eerie voice for the mysterious Darth Vader; the comic biplay between the lovable robots C3PO and R2D2; Mark Hamill's naive farm boy Luke Skywalker who eventually becomes a fighter pilot for the Rebellion (Hamill's career never took off the way his co-stars did); the masterful restraint of Sir Alec Guinness as the sage Obi-Wan; Peter Mayhew as the hairy seven-foot growling Chewbacca; and notably Peter Cushing as the commander of the Death Star station - he's almost as scary as Vader when he blows up Leia's home planet Alderaan!

The additions to "Star Wars" are not as invigorating as one would hope yet some of them are essential. The addition of a younger, less slimier Jabba the Hutt who confronts Han Solo after Solo killed one of his henchmen, Greedo, is fun to watch but nonessential. Firstly, Jabba seems friendly and warm when compared to the evil, corrupt reptilian seen in "Return of the Jedi." Secondly, Jabba reiterates everything that Greedo says to Solo in the previous scene. Referring back to the Greedo confrontation, moralist George Lucas decides to have Han Solo defend himself by showing Greedo shooting Han, and missing (!), and then Han kills Greedo. Originally, Han was to have shot Greedo in cold-blood - that was the point because he was a daredevil pilot who would shoot at anything. But by reversing and changing the scene, Lucas makes a different point all together which is that some films are better left in their original format.

Other additions actually work quite well. The introduction of the spaceport Mos Eisley, where Luke and Kenobi find Han, is filled with more neat outside shots of the city. There's also a terrific scene where Luke talks to Briggs, his fellow pilot, before they take off for attack. The sequence where Luke and Leia are shooting stormtroopers over an abyss is enhanced aurally with echoes and is more magnificent than ever.

"Star Wars" is not the only one with a makeover - The Empire Strikes Back has some finishing touches but most of it has been left intact. This is the best of the trilogy and it also has more depth, humor and character development than either one. Han Solo is more reckless and suffers a horrible fate; Luke Skywalker learns the way of the Jedi from a nine-hundred year old wizened creature called Yoda, and faces Vader; Leia falls in love with Han; there are more special effects including a superb asteroid battle; a startling revelation about Darth Vader, and a dark ending where neither the Rebellion nor the Empire wins. It's a grand space opera with imagination and great storytelling to spare.

"Return of the Jedi" suffers the most from the changes, and it is also the weakest of the three. Firstly, there's an embarrassing sequence redone with CGI effects (and a new song!) in Jabba the Hutt's palace, which looks more like an outtake from a Disney musical. Secondly, I noticed a bizarre trimming of the Ewok celebration at the end - Luke's close-ups in recognition of the spirits of Vader, Kenobi and Yoda seemed to have been cut, and the new Ewok song is less joyful and more of a distraction than anything else.

Needless to say, the effects in "Jedi" are the best of the three, including the battle on the barge in Tattoine, and the battle on Endor with the flying bikes. Harrison Ford seems stoned out of his mind and less heroic than usual. Ironically, it is Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher who give the better performances. Luke is more mature and has progressed into a full-fledged Jedi; Leia seems to finally know how to shoot lasers and has one tender scene with Luke; and Chewbacca, C3PO and R2D2 are more annoying than ever. Revelations are aplenty and we finally get to see what Darth Vader really looks like under that mask. "Jedi" is not a great film but it is a worthy successor that could have shimmered with improvements in the script department (And get rid of those characterless Ewoks who resemble nothing more than teddy bears!).

The special edition of the "Star Wars" trilogy is not as great as it should have been nor does it surpass the original versions. Still, nobody should pass up the grand opportunity of seeing this fantastic space odyssey on the silver screen. George Lucas should be proud of renewing interest in these science-fiction classics for a whole new generation.

Footnote: Lucas has created more changes for the 2004 DVD release and the 2011 Blu-Ray release, not to mention the forthcoming 3-D enhancements. This review only applies to the 1997 special edition version of the trilogy. 

Machete don't text

MACHETE (2010)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Robert Rodriguez has never shied away from ultraviolent gore in his pulpy tales of yore yet "Machete," though filled to the brim with cartoonishly improbable violence, is not nearly as ultraviolent as some of his other films. In fact, dare I say, this is Rodriguez at his most restrained for this type of neo-exploitation pulp fiction. A welcome respite from his usual guns-a-blazin' in a two-fisted, hyperbolic manner, "Machete" is also one of his most enjoyable films.

Dan Trejo is Machete, a face with more wrinkles, crevices and personality than even stone-faced Lee Van Cleef (frankly, Lee Van Cleef would be scared of this guy). Le Machete is an ex-federale agent and illegal immigrant living on the border of south Texas, helping himself to tacos and coffee. He seeks revenge for the murders of his wife and child by a vicious drug lord, Torrez (Steven Seagal, absolutely the perfect villain). Years of unemployment leads Machete to a shady aide, Michael Booth (Jeff Fahey), and to an even shadier Senator McLaughlin (Robert De Niro), whose poll numbers are declining. Booth wants Machete to assassinate McLaughlin to boost the poll numbers. There is a double-cross, not to mention colorful characters like S*h*e (Michelle Rodriguez), a taco food truck owner doubling as a revolutionary; a fastidious La Migra agent (Jessica Alba); Lindsay Lohan as Booth's drunk daughter; Cheech Marin as a priest, Machete's brother, with a vow for nonviolence, except in a Machete situation; a hilarious Tom Savini as a hitman, and Don Johnson as a ruthless border patrol cop. 

Yep, there are severed heads, heads and arms blown up or torn apart, intestines used as swinging vines, and various sharp instruments used in less utilatarian ways. Sometimes Rodriguez shows some cruel violence, as in the execution of a pregnant woman crossing the border. However, nothing in this movie approaches the level of nonsensical ultraviolence as exhibited by his own "Desperado" (the subject of that movie was seeing how many different angles Antonio Banderas can shoot two guns, slow-motion or otherwise). I hated "Desperado" and had hoped Rodriguez was not going for empty exploitation with this film, and I was right. 

In fact, "Machete" has a good sense of humor about itself, and allows room for political satire (De Niro's McLauglin looks a lot like the current Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry). The political ads for the senator are fun to watch, though they may hit home more than you think. The film has a partisan satire angle (a pro-illegal immigration stance) but it does make its points, buried in the mess of blood-spraying carnage. I suppose the message is if you allow illegal immigrants to come into the country without an electrified fence at the border, you might have a Mexican hero who can save us from crass, greedy politicians who want to ruin the country by hiring illegals and turning in a profit...oh, wait. But Machete is saving south Texas from politicians who exploit illegal immigrants, despite the fact that illegals come into this country to work, ah, hell. Call the EEOC. 

As for the remarkable cast, call me crazy but I love Steven Seagal. Half of his movies may have been garbage but he has a commanding presence and a slightly soft, threatening voice that drips with malice. He is the perfect villain as Torrez, and I am surprised it took this long for anyone to cast him as the bad guy. De Niro and Johnson obviously relish their villainous roles, and Lindsay Lohan sparkles the screen when she appears, especially in a nun's outfit! 

"Machete" and Rodriguez's own films owe a debt to the grindhouse factory of the 60's and 70's for their bleached images and scratchy surfaces (Rodriguez and Tarantino's own failed movie, "Grindhouse," is among the best of its kind and features a faux trailer for this film). Truthfully, many of the grindhouse, exploitation films were not very good and Rodriguez and Tarantino (who helmed the "Death Proof" film for "Grindhouse") have made better movies than their original sources. "Machete" simply has Danny Trejo, and his face is enough to draw fear in the minds of all politicians. He will let them know how he feels only when he's armed because Machete don't text.  

FOOTNOTE: It is in Jessica Alba's contract that she won't appear nude in a film. One scene in "Machete" shows her in a shower stall, clearly nude. In actuality, she was wearing clothes and they digitally erased the clothing. I am not sure what is Lindsay Lohan's nudity clause in her contract but she does appear nude in two scenes. One scene, her long blonde curls clearly cover her breasts, as in Daryl Hannah-"Splash"-style. One other scene in a pool, she is more clearly nude but you don't see Lohan's face. Does she have her own body double?