Beautiful artistic crime of the century

THE WALK (2015)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Man on Wire" was a phenomenally great documentary on the famous wire walker, Philippe Petit, as he wire-walked across the top of the World Trade Center in 1974. The documentary captured the essence and beauty of a man walking across the clouds, at least as perceived by the New Yorkers below who could not help but gawk at this tremendous event. As a documentary, it stood firm in its unveiling of a man who saw this event as his destiny. It also benefited from splendid reenactments, on the order of a first-rate 70's suspense thriller, on how Petit and his band of accomplices achieved the impossible. So how does Robert Zemeckis's fictionalized treatment compare? It can't really because both have different tasks they wish to accomplish yet "The Walk" is so well-made, so assured in its task to unveil the unbelievable that I would say both make for a fascinating double feature.

In the early days of juggling and walking on wires suspended between two lamp posts in France in the 1970's, Philippe Petit (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has a euphoric moment at a dentist's office. He sees the pictures of the World Trade Center, the tallest buildings in the world that are still being constructed in New York City. Once he sees them, he knows that his dream is to walk across them, via a suspended wire of course. Philippe can't do this alone so he tries to learn all the tricks of the trade from an older circus performer (Ben Kingsley - a powerful presence whom I hope returns to lead roles soon), who teaches him how to properly bow to the audience. Petit's other accomplices include his girlfriend, Annie, a musician (Charlotte Le Bon); a photographer, Jean-Louis (Clément Sibony), who has to record this historical event; a mathematician afraid of heights (César Domboy), and then there are the New York accomplices including a life insurance salesman (Steve Valentine, a terrific Scottish actor playing a pure New Yorker) who works at the WTC.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Petit

The real Philippe Petit

The planning of this artistic crime is riveting stuff, it sucks you into the story and you pray that it works. Only this is not an artistic crime, it is an expression of art, of feeling free from the boundaries that make one pause before they rebel and continue to play by the rules. Nobody prior to Petit had ever thought of walking across those towers (they are diagonal which would make the walk seem less likely). All this is not only beautifully conveyed by director Robert Zemeckis, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Christopher Browne, but also by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, an actor who has already proven to be one of our most charismatic new stars in Hollywood. Levitt has the innate ability to show sensitivity with a look or a gesture - never accuse him of overacting because he doesn't. He certainly conveys the overzealous nature of Petit, of wanting to prove to the world that art is beauty after all. Levitt doesn't quite show the level of arrogance from Petit or, in those famous photos of the event, the smile that illustrated he was in the right place at the right time. These are minor quibbles. 

The last forty minutes of "The Walk" are startling to say the least as Petit walks across the two towers. It is grand, scintillating, scary, elegiac and will make your palms sweat. It is where the film was headed, to display the ultimate show on Earth and show not only the majesty of these towers but also the majestic act of walking in the sky. Though the narrative can get lumpy at first with the Parisian scenes, "The Walk" eventually finds its groove when Petit and his accomplices arrive in New York City. It is not as scintillating as "Man on Wire" (which mixed reenactments with actual footage) but it is a splendid companion piece. "The Walk" is also that rare thriller based on a true story that thrills us with the unimaginable and makes it beautiful. 

The Truth about Aliens

THE X-FILES (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Original Review: 1998 screening)

I've only watched a couple of "X-Files" episodes, but I have to say that I was mesmerized by their haunting power and sense of dread. Scully and Mulder were deadpan FBI agents rattled around the bleak, conspiratorial universe created by Chris Carter where aliens exist. Now comes the inevitable film version and, although it is not as bleak as the show, it is a nicely crafted, weirdly paradoxical movie that is quite a pleasure to sit through.

Of course, Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) are still on the lookout for alien conspiracies. This time, it may have something to do with the explosion of a Texas office building where black-oil virus victims are supposedly kept. In the meantime, Mulder is repeatedly visited by a flaky doctor (the superb Martin Landau) who insists that the Texas bombing was an alien cover-up. Mulder tries to convince Scully that killer bees, a black-oil virus and some Tunisian cornfields are all part of a conspiracy involving the Well-Manicured Man, the Cigarette Smoking Man, and some Syndicate overlords - the idea is that aliens have been around for thousands of years and have hidden underground oozing some deadly black oil to unintended victims!

Naturally, in a movie like this, the conspiracy theories abound with so much abandon that it is impossible to follow who or what is responsible for whom. The joy of "The X-Files" is to watch David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson play against and with each other; their scenes together, particularly a brief emotional moment where they almost kiss, are electrifying to watch. Obviously, they know their characters well enough to make us care about their plight in murky waters.

"The X-Files" has a number of terrifying moments. They include a bombing scene that has such a creepy realism, it would give the "Lethal Weapon" duo nightmares for months; the moment when an alien devours a child underground; and the apocalyptic finale (similar to "Smilla's Sense of Snow") where Mulder tries to rescue Scully from an icy cavernous fortress where numerous alien catacombs exist.

"The X-Files" doesn't make much sense and there are more plot holes than one can count, e.g., just how does Mulder escape an icy wilderness when his snowmobile is out of gas? The film is still strangely compelling, thrilling, chilling, eerie, and ably acted by Duchovny and Anderson. That's more than you can expect from any recent sci-fi movies.

J-Lo's Lifetime Revenge Movie

ENOUGH (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

After the first twenty minutes of "Enough," Jennifer Lopez discovers that her husband of five years is a dishonest prick who cheats on her and is physically abusive. He punches her in the mouth and what is his reasoning? It is his house, his rules. True enough, but it is also her house and they have a child. Thus begins the highly implausible and highly dishonest "Enough," a high-powered Lifetime TV revenge movie for women. It's the kind of picture that women are supposed to love because it empowers them. I also know women love "In the Company of Men" because it shows men at their most piggish. To each her own.

Jennifer Lopez, Miss J-Lo to the rest of you, plays Slim, a Latino waitress whose best friend is another waitress, Ginny (Juliette Lewis). One day, a customer (Noah Wyle) tries to pick her up with flowers only for his bluff to be blown by another customer, Mitch (Billy Campbell), a wealthy contractor. One assumes Slim is instantly smitten since the next scene shows them getting married. Then five years pass. They have one child but Mitch is less interested in having sex with J-Lo than you can imagine. The beatings start. Slim has her ex-boss and Ginny ready to save her by leaving her husband in the middle of the night and taking their daughter. Then Slim ends up in a motel, then in the arms of her ex-boyfriend, then she seeks help from her estranged father (Fred Ward) who doesn't even recognize her, and on and on.

"Enough" is divided into segments of such frenzy that it is difficult to latch onto Slim's own overstated predicament. A better film would have shown her reporting the abuse to the police and dealing with the consequences of her fragile marriage. A better actor than Campbell would've shown the immoral prick that Mitch has become, bedding women left and right. Thanks to the screenplay by Nicholas Kazan, we have scenes of such implausibility that you'll be rolling your eyes and saying, "Oh, come on!" Most of the movie has Slim driving one vehicle after another to elude her husband and other captors he has hired, including pseudo-FBI agents who have no qualms of putting a knife at her throat! Amazingly, Mitch knows where she is at any given moment and presumably has her phones bugged at any place she stays in, but he can't see her coming for the inevitable confrontation!

Basically, "Enough" is saying that if a husband and father is a philanderer and violently abusive, this warrants the mother whisking her child away from him without ever calling the police. If a man can kick a woman's butt, a woman can likewise kick a man's butt. J-Lo is shown training to fight back so she can disarm her husband with severe body blows to the gut and slaps to the face. The problem develops when we ask the most basic question: why does Slim have the right to violently abuse him by taunting and provoking him? How is this woman any different than the man who abused her? Because it is Jennifer Lopez in action-movie-heroine mode, as opposed to a more realistic story of how a woman runs away with her kid without resorting to violence while she grows deeper in trouble with the law by never reporting where she is hiding.

"Enough" is not interested in exploring the morality of this overwrought tale and is less interested in exploring the personalities. The husband is pure evil, the wife is pure goodness who just wants revenge, and the kid is a whiner who isn't allowed a personality beyond excessive whimpering. If this is your cup of tea, sit back and enjoy.

Cooly extreme politics

SYRIANA (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Original review written in 2005

As of this writing, Exxon Mobil has just garnered 104 billion in profits. No surprise considering the price hikes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Oil is all that accounts for anything in the political drama "Syriana," a film bent on placing characters in situations beyond their control and our control.

George Clooney plays a paunchy, slightly hunched-over CIA operative, Bob Barnes, who is sent on a mission to assassinate one of two Saudi princes. Barnes's mission is derailed when he is bound by duct tape and tortured by some anonymous contact. Reasons are never made clear but we do know that it'll take time for him to grow back a few fingernails. Barnes is still on a mission but he wants to know why the CIA is turning their backs on him. Did Barnes screw up or is the Saudi prince a casualty that the government and big corporations cannot afford?

The Saudi prince is Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) and he is hopeful he will be the next emir (king to the rest of you). He is also ambitious and smart and has a collective interest in maintaining a business relationship with America and China. His American contact is energy analyst, Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon) who, in a brilliantly written scene, explains how the Saudis are economically irresponsible and regressing in their business interests. That is quite a dig at the Saudis, isn't it Mr. President?

Next there's a Washington attorney, Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) whose job is to investigate the merger between the two oil companies, though he finds there are discrepancies and corrupt people within (as if that was any surprise). Is he willing to help the hand that feeds him or will he bite? Holiday also has a drunk father who sits on the stoop every day waiting for him, and also has the tendency to check on his son's notes on the bulletin board.

There are other characters in this melting mix of conspiracy and corruption and it is tough keeping track of who is who. Part of the reason may be that writer-director Stephen Gaghan (who also wrote "Traffic") doesn't spend much time on characters or motivations - he just wants to rub our noses in these scandalous times and ask us to be shocked. I was, but not as much at the evil, greedy corporations that exist (a cinematic cliche for more than three decades now), not to mention our own government, but at how little I got to know the participants in the puzzle that Gaghan has constructed for us.

This movie is all over the map, never quite zeroing in on any particular situation or event. I have no problem with Gaghan's structure, which certainly worked in "Traffic" and has been a staple of director Robert Altman's for quite some time. But such a structure can also produce its own flaws. "Syriana" assumes that big corporations and Saudis investing in oil profits, first for the benefit of mergers and raking in the big bucks, and secondly for the benefit of the American people (what benefit is there if gas prices alarmingly go up and down?) while CIA operatives are scapegoated and political turmoil ensues with radical Islamic bombers, is enough reason to give it urgency. To some extent it is, considering our current political climate, but the movie operates under exclamation marks with a clearly liberal agenda. I do not object to setting a political agenda in a film as long as the characters within the framework are not one-dimensional. Unfortunately, for "Syriana," they are and we are left fending for something to grab hold of.

Clooney's bearded Barnes, who is shown wasted and out of breath throughout (a far cry from his heroic role in "The Peacemaker"), is a man with nothing when he's made the patsy by the CIA. We learn that his son goes to Princeton and his wife may leave him, but not much else. Theoretically, that is an accurate assessment of a CIA operative but, for this movie, less is less and we never really care about him or his mission.

Matt Damon comes off strongest in the film as Woodman, strongly affected by the accidental death of his son and using it to support an idealistic prince. However, we are not given much insight into Woodman's plans either, and his supposed realization in the end that family matters may as well have drifted in from a Disney flick. Jeffrey Wright is also firm and commanding as the attorney Holiday, though one is never sure where his trust truly lies. There's also Christopher Plummer and Chris Cooper in the kind of roles we've seen them play before in their sleep.

"Syriana" is not so much confusing as it is exhausting, with too many conflicts and not much human interaction for the audience. It is like watching a bunch of stick figures in a maze, never quite knowing where any of them belong. The message of the movie is that greed corrupts everyone and that the one commodity of interest in these turbulent times, oil, is all that matters. It is a cynical (and possibly) truthful assertion, but it needs some emotional weight. I admire some of the performances and some of the writing (including a nail-biting description of the nature of corruption) and there are some intriguing scenes in "Syriana," but it is an underwhelmingly cold movie. Personally, I like a little more dimension with cooly extreme political views.

Making new memories for Riley

INSIDE OUT (2015) [One of the 10 best films of the 2010 era]

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There are few films in life that are so spirited, so joyous and so embraceable that they want to make you hug them. They are not cuddly exactly but they inspire because of their zippiness, their absolute sense of assuredness in their storytelling. Animated films don't always do that for me, with the exception of the "Toy Story" trilogy and "Up" (possibly Pixar's best film), but this latest Pixar feature, "Inside Out," is a glorious, resonant, inventively dazzling, colorful and emotional beauty of a film. It is so damn inspired that you kinda wonder why nobody thought of it before.

Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust, and Anger are five of the emotions that are bottled up inside of Riley's conscious mind. Riley is a Minnesotan girl (Kaitlyn Dias) who is not too sure about moving to San Francisco when her dad gets a new job. Riley makes the best of it yet one of the emotions, Sadness (Phyllis Smith), wants to turn her very being as blue as possible because Sadness, well, she just can’t help it. Let’s backtrack: Sadness is an actual being inside Riley’s mind, one of five personifications. There is the ebullient Joy (Amy Poehler) who wants to make sure Riley is always in an up mood, and who tries her best to keep Sadness at bay. Anger (Lewis Black) burns with rage, literally, especially when flames shoot out of his head and Fear (Bill Hader) hops away from all possible entanglements that Riley may get into (like her first day of school, always trying to keep her safe). Disgust (Mindy Kaling) expresses as much at the new house that is in desperate need of repair.

The emotions are living in Headquarters, Riley’s mind, which is where memories are stored in colored orbs. Joy is hoping all of Riley's memories and core memories are joyful - the core memories are turning points in Riley's life and power different islands that encompass personality aspects. At a console, Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger manage to keep things in control. But after the moving fiasco and Riley's sadness about her former life in Minnesota, it becomes clearer that sometimes emotions can't always be manipulated by anyone, including Joy. Sometimes core memories are forgotten or begin to erode and one of the key themes of "Inside Out" is that the mind is far more complex than what five beings can manage at a console. In the end, Sadness may be the key to resolving Riley's issues.

"Inside Out" is a resplendent film of boundless imagination. Every scene and every shot takes us into a world I have never seen before - one where memories and emotions coexist in a varicolored landscape of orbs in multiple wall displays and a maze of tubes. Thanks to the screenwriters Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve and Josh Cooley, "Inside Out" also emits so much humanism, controlled humor and unshakable sympathy to Riley and the five emotion personalities that you can't help but feel connected to them all. The film has an air of sophistication about how emotions cannot be controlled and manipulated. Even happy memories can fade and though there is a touch of melancholy about growing up and adapting to a new home, the future still holds a measure of hope and suggests that life is an adventure and all sorts of emotional curveballs will come Riley's way (Joy just has no clue what will happen when puberty hits). But this facet of Riley's existence is not something that only young girls will identify with - everyone will see some semblance of themselves in the restoration of happy and sad memories.

Stunning animation, vivid colors and razor-sharp writing are all but a few of the reasons why "Inside Out" works. We now live in a pop culture that revisits cinematic helpings of already well-traveled landscapes. “Inside Out” reminds us of the genuine power of fresh new landscapes.

Burt Reynolds wants to go to Venice

HEAT (1986)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 Burt Reynolds is an actor who has so much magnetism and charisma that he can lift his right or left eyebrow, smile a little, shrug his shoulders and say so much without uttering one syllable. So much talent, spread and squandered on so many futile efforts. "Heat" is among them, an alleged action thriller that thrives on the absurd and preposterous and says nil.

Mind you, I do not expect an action thriller to always have something to say nor do I expect a Burt Reynolds flick to be anything other than a sparkling diamond in the rough. But let us consider the opening sequence. Burt is some mean drunk at a bar who hassles a woman waiting for her date and a proposition of marriage. He harasses her to no end and the date shows up, telling Burt to leave. They exit the bar and a fight ensues where the scrawny-looking date actually has the upper hand, or the upper punch. He knocks out Burt and his date is impressed. It was all a ruse you see, and that could have been a sweet setup for a comedy about how Burt Reynolds is always playing tough and mean only to be roughed up by a weakling to impress a fiancee. That could have been a major stroke of inspiration, especially from screenwriter William Goldman ("Misery," "All the President's Men") who is not known for such comedic sensibilities.

Travel with Burt

Instead we are saddled with a movie that goes nowhere fast. Burt plays yet another tough guy named Escalante, who might be a bodyguard at a casino though he looks more like James Bond. He also helps out a young troubled girl (Karen Young) who is roughed up and raped by some scrawny-looking rich kid in a blue robe. A Mafia Don eventually enters the picture...oh, why go on? Peter MacNicol is some other rich, scrawny-looking guy (I sense a pattern) who wants to hire Escalante to help teach him how to fight back. How noble. All I learned from the training exercises is that in a violent situation, when in doubt with those fists of fury, aim for the tender ball sack or tear off an ear!

Escalante's character is so mysterious that either he is a Vietnam Vet and current bodyguard, or he works at a dingy travel agency (it looks like one) because the guy has a major need to go to Venice. He is also adept at fighting and never uses a gun, and has a gambling problem. Or maybe he needs a lot of money so he can stay in Venice. Either way, this interminable bore of a movie is not really about anything - just a series of flimsy, illogical excuses to show close-ups of Burt Reynolds. In one exceedingly ill-written scene, Escalante somehow convinces a villain to off himself! No way! For some seeing Burt in anything might be sufficient justification and, for others, "Heat" is a reminder of the semi-interminable celluloid waste of Burt Reynolds. 

Let's Get Nuclear

WARGAMES (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Watched repeatedly in the 1980's - This review was written in 1999)

1983 was the year of the computer revolution in the movies. Computers were ubiquitous, even appearing as a deadly villain against Superman in the dreary "Superman III." The following year, it became an instrument of jealousy in a relationship in the sweet "Electric Dreams." "WarGames" is different though since it is not really about computers in the general sense - it is about how much trust we put in computers, and how we may erroneously depend on them when it comes to the inevitable threat of nuclear war.

Matthew Broderick, in his pre-Ferris Bueller mode, stars as David Lightman, a teenage high school student with a fixation for his bedroom computer. His parents are unaware of his computer hacking methods, but they do know his school grades are suffering (he breaks into the school's computer and advances his grades to A's). One day, David unknowingly accesses the WOPR computer at the NORAD missile-defense system, which makes 24-hour decisions regarding the plight of a possible World War III. David only he thinks he is playing some advanced video games. Before you know it, the country is embroiled in a possible war with the Russians but it is all orchestrated by the supercomputer - the question remains: Does the computer know it is only a game?

"WarGames" starts off with a thrilling prologue where we see the men who pull the switches for the silos preparing for an unforeseen attack. One of the men fails to operate the switch to launch the missile, afraid of killing millions of people. It turns out that the attack was a test but they did not know this - this sets up the rest of the film's theme about the paranoia centering on the threat of nuclear war. We also get lots of "Dr. Strangelove" scenes of Barry Corbin (best known for TV's "Northern Exposure") as General Beringer commingling with other advisers in front of giant computer screens showing several Russian missiles destroying U.S. military bases. The coup de resistance is seeing Dabney Coleman arguing with Beringer while John Wood shows up as Stephen Falken, a former scientist who created the WOPR, insisting that it is all a game.

"WarGames" is skillfully directed by John Badham ("Blue Thunder," "Stakeout") and the thrills and tension abound with restless unease. The threat of nuclear war seems real enough because it is all at the mercy of a computer, and that is what makes the film a thrillingly scary ride. "2001: A Space Odyssey" warned us of the dangers of computers in 1968 and "WarGames" tells us that it is no longer a warning - it is a very real possibility. Now in 1999, we are all dependent on computers for all our daily needs such as the Internet, banking, shopping, the arts, etc. I am using a computer right now to type this review, though they say writing improves greatly when first written on paper. The last straw, though, is to have a computer making life-threatening decisions for us.

One of the best scenes is when David tries to get the WOPR to play thermonuclear war. It asks: "Wouldn't you prefer a fine game of chess?" David says: "No, let's play global thermonuclear war." Its response: "Fine." That scene still keeps me horrified and tense probably because we also hear the computer talk with David's use of an electronic transmitter - the voice sounds properly inhuman and soulless.

"WarGames" may not be a great thriller nor is there much weight to certain characters, particularly the underdeveloped Stephen Falken role played by John Wood. Still, it has its share of surprises and thrills along the way, and its relatively simple theme - do not rely on anyone but yourselves in the event of a crisis - is as resonant today as it was in 1983