Dull Cronenberg is better than no Cronenberg?

 THE SHROUDS (2024)
Endured by Jerry Saravia

David Cronenberg has always been our most fanciful body horror go-to director. His films in the early years, such as "Scanners" and "Videodrome" not to mention the ersatz pleasures of "Shivers", were more geek show than profoundly thematic pictures though they possessed some unusual ideas about the connection between technology, the body and sex. Since the 1980's, Cronenberg has crafted more complex meditations on those very same themes, sometimes thrillingly as in his adaptation of Burrough's "The Naked Lunch" and sometimes with a naked honesty in the opaque "Crash," also an adaptation of almost unreadable prose by J.G. Ballard. Leaving aside some exciting, unforgettable efforts like "A History of Violence" (the best films of the 2000 decade) or "A Dangerous Method," he can veer into subjects that are non-body horror. "The Shrouds," and his recent "Crimes of the Future," are attempts to dwell a little more intricately into the bizarre connections between sex, tech and body. For my own sanity, I hate to report that "The Shrouds," a very personal film for the director, is a silly bore.

Vincent Cassel (the live wire actor who always made an impression on me since "Hate") is Karsh, who has been grief-stricken over the death of his wife, Becca (Diane Kruger), so much so that he has invented a shroud, a mesh that covers a corpse in their burial site. This mesh (which in one incredulous scene he decides to wear to know what it is like) is an app-controlled device that allows visitors to a cemetery to view the corpse on the screen attached to a dark monolith-looking tombstone! Karsh owns the cemetery, known as Gravetech, and the restaurant that is adjacent to it! Yes, you read that right. Karsh even has a blind date with someone to whom he shows a video of his decomposing wife in real time! How so decidedly Cronenbergian! If I ever go on a date with someone again, the last place I would consider is a cemetery regardless if I owned it.

It is around this point that I lost interest in "The Shrouds." That is not to say that there was not a germ of intrigue when Karsh finds that someone has violated the cemetery monoliths and that a possible foreign intervention occurred, either by the Chinese or the Russians. What begins as a story of grief quickly dissolves into some sort of quasi-thriller where the thrills are absent. If it wasn't a political ploy, was it his go-to cyber guy (Guy Pearce), Karsh's former brother-in-law, who is more than a little paranoid? Was it Becca's own doctor whom she turned out to be sleeping with? Did I stop caring and keep passing out? You bet. I was not expecting a conventional movie at all but I found precious little here to keep me invested. 

Director David Cronenberg has maintained a washed-out digital sheen to this film that can grate the nerves and induce eye-shutting. There were times where the characters were so shrouded in darkness, mostly in Karsh's apartment, that it was difficult to discern any emotions on their faces. It is not the actors' fault - they are up to the challenge and Cassell is as live-wire as he can be, Diane Kruger shows an electrifying intimacy, Guy Pearce plays a paranoid schizophrenic better than anyone, and there is a touch of the erotic in Sandrine Holt as a blind woman who is slowly dying. Maybe to Cronenberg, everyone is so dead in their own right - thanks to technology becoming so entrenched in their lives - that everything looks colorless. Maybe dull Cronenberg is better than no Cronenberg. I'd rather watch "The Naked Lunch" again. 

Fortress of Solitude

 EX MACHINA (2014)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I was reminded by a film fan today how these 21st century A.I. movies always have super advanced female robots at a male creator's disposal. Recently I saw the entertaining "Companion" that had the fantastic Sophie Thatcher at is center and had to check out Alex Garland's directorial debut, "Ex Machina." I found that both movies have their similarities yet one is a little more profound than the other. You guessed it, it is Garland's film that decides to explore its ideas of A.I intelligence and discover if robots can be sentient. No surprise, they can be and we have seen this concept before ever since the HAL computer found that it did not want to be excluded from human beings' decisions. Sentience has always entered the picture.  

"Ex Machina" begins with a fairly decent coder, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), who works for a search engine company called Blue Book. He has won some competition where he gets a grand opportunity to meet the CEO of the company, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Nathan is your typical CEO living in an isolated wilderness section with its own key card security clearance; it is an essentially modernized, computerized home with a little taste. Nathan also has a full beard, works out with a punching bag and drinks copious amounts of alcohol - he is seemingly a regular guy with too much wealth. Meanwhile, Caleb has to sign a disclosure agreement that warrants secrecy about what Nathan has invented that is far beyond any technological improvements on search engines. The invention is a female robot named Ava (Alicia Vikander) who has a partial see-through mesh endoskeleton and is being kept in a glass-encased room. Caleb is to have daily sessions with her, to determine if she can extrapolate deep thoughts and have a consciousness. Ava seems to have an innate ability to do so (she clearly has been programmed to) yet she might have some thoughts about her creator, thoughts shared only when the power occasionally goes out. 

"Ex Machina" is fascinating and has a sense of inevitability that is clearly predetermined. I figured Nathan had some designs on Ava and a mute servant, Kyoko (Sonoya Mizuno), that shows he is abusing his power - if someone is that isolated from the world, can someone go mad with their creations and with their one servant whom Nathan sleeps with? Of course they can go mad since movies and literature about mad scientists are ubiquitous. What is exciting and uniquely original about "Ex Machina" is that Oscar Isaac doesn't play Nathan as a mad scientist/inventor but as a guy who has created a woman robot for the most prurient of reasons, certainly way beyond "Weird Science." He is an approachable guy, up to a point, and drinks merrily. Gleeson's Caleb is a smart twenty-something who has deep philosophical questions for Ava only Ava has romantic interests in Caleb. Can Caleb convince himself that Ava is someone he can date or does he realize he is possibly being played by an alert, intelligent robot who can tell when he lies? Think the computer HAL except in female form.  

There is nothing new in "Ex Machina" in its exploration of such prescient themes that go way back to Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein." Also much of what occurs with Ava, Nathan and Kyoko you can see miles ahead. Still, I was taken in by Nathan's modernist, creepy habitat and by the conversations between Caleb and Ava that lead to an inevitable need for Ava to break free. You be a female robot who is cooped up in a room 24 hours a day - an escape to the area's surrounding woods and beautiful rocky formations is what anyone would need from such solidity. Maybe Nathan, Kyoko and Caleb need it to.  

There has to be an easier way to get a date

 COMPANION (2025)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Companion" is an anti-AI, anti-technology movie, pure and simple. Well, to be fair, it also shares the humanism of "Blade Runner" and "A.I" that robots do in fact want to be loved - that is to say, if they are programmed to love. I know, I know, "Blade Runner" had replicants, not robots technically, which meant they were flesh and blood humans with super strength and implanted memories. While watching "Companion," memories of "The Stepford Wives" emerged which had robot wives replacing actual wives by murdering them. "Companion" is cut from a different cloth - it is goofy, explosively violent satire with a silly plot that nevertheless serves as a warning about reliance on technology and using it as a replacement for a human companion. 

The bright colors of a supermarket and a young, openly sweet woman with a bright outfit pushing her cart down the aisles greets the opening scenes of "Companion" and you might feel you have wandered into an average romantic comedy. Of course, you haven't really - it is a memory implant in a female robot, a servile bot for an eager Gen Z man who should be able to score a date with, you know, a flesh-and-blood human girl. The robot is Iris (a fantastically alive performance by Sophie Thatcher) and her boyfriend, or her masculine master to some, is Josh (Jack Quaid). Josh is seemingly appealing enough and a good boyfriend for Iris. They are en route to a desolate lake house owned by a purportedly Russian mobster (Rupert Friend) who is married yet has a girlfriend named Kat (Megan Suri), who is none too pleased by the presence of Iris. Other friends in attendance include the fun-loving couple Eli (a sprightly Harvey Guillén) and Patrick (Lukas Gage) with Patrick being an exemplary cook. The following day Iris is...I just can't say any more.

"Companion" brings up the ethics of having a female bot as a companion without spelling it out. It also intermittently brings up issues of an ideal romance and an ideal couple - can that fantasy exist in normal human couples? I am sure it can so why did Josh, a good-looking guy, go this route. Why is a female AI companion considered normal in this world? Or is it already with AI chats with fantasy women online - we don't have female bots with human characteristics in our homes yet but is that future not too far behind? Does a man really want a servile woman straight out of the 1950's world when feminism was not popular? A sign of regression, perhaps, because Iris does resemble a 1950's woman. The comparisons to "The Stepford Wives" should be unmistakable, that is the 1975 film although this film seems to crib the 2004 remake's satirical barbs. 

The movie is swiftly paced at 97 minutes and as appealing as Thatcher's Iris is, the rest of the characters (excluding the boisterous Eli who has some sort of moral code) are unappealing and I would not want to spend two minutes with them. Josh becomes something of a bastard whose good looks mask his contempt for Iris and his greedy, selfish side. Same with Kat who is as equally self-absorbed. The Russian mob guy with 12 million dollars at his disposal turns out to be a repugnant person as well. Patrick is a well-meaning guy who has a secret I will not reveal here. 

"Companion" turns into a blood-soaked thriller and, though it often had me on the edge of my seat, the razor thin plot dealing with this Russian guy's fortune is forgettable and is a boring nuisance (how many times have we seen this idea explored before?) "Companion" is at its best with Sophie Thatcher's potentially star-making performance, a ray of sunshine in a robot that acts a little too human. The implications of having a robot companion are occasionally explored and you have to sift through some gunfire, a curious sheriff, 12 million dollars and a little blood to get there. There has to be an easier way to get a date. 

Rigidity and Dignity at Darlington

 THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (1993)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

James Ivory's "The Remains of the Day" is a masterful, implicitly delicate drama of a career butler isolated from his emotions. The butler's dedication as a servant to a lord of the manor is commendable yet it means he is choosing to sacrifice love and is seemingly bereft of feelings - dignity, as it were. Witnessing such a man under lesser hands would've been excruciating and justifiably depressing yet with director James Ivory and a supreme actor like Anthony Hopkins, it becomes immensely absorbing handled with finesse and restraint.

Hopkins is Mr. Stevens, the English butler of Darlington Hall in the 1930's - a manor in the middle of a vast countryside. Stevens has quite a staff at his disposal that includes maids, footmen, and the reliable kitchen staff. There's a hierarchy implicit in Lord Darlington (James Fox), again the lord of the manor, and all the heads of state that regularly visit Darlington Hall including British and German aristocrats who see no need to hand the reins of the government to the non-aristocratic working class. There is also a hierarchy in the servant class where Mr. Stevens expects to be addressed as such without mention of his first name. This leads to several arguments between the fanatically precise Stevens and the newly hired housekeeper Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson, one of the more emotionally grounded performances she has ever given). Kenton keeps an eye on Mr. Stevens' father (Peter Vaughan), also newly hired as an under-butler after having 50-plus years of service, who is too old to maintain proper service and has an accident where he trips while delivering a tray of food. A waiter he cannot manage and the old man unfortunately dies. What does his son, Mr. Stevens Jr., do upon learning of his father's death? He continues his job, never expressing much emotion though it is clear that he is affected by it. The job dictates complete confidence and capability in doing it yet surely he could've expressed his sadness. This is the definitive Anthony Hopkins performance and one that should be celebrated as one of the greatest cinematic gifts of the 20th century - it is a towering, thrillingly realized performance of extreme subtlety and nuanced body language. 

Most of "The Remains of the Day" is the depiction of Mr. Stevens as a man unfazed by not having close relationships or any possible romance with Miss Kenton. He also hopes other young servants who wish to climb higher in the field will not succumb to romancing the maids or anyone else in the household. Mr. Stevens has applied these principles to his own life, his life of servitude is all that defines him. When he is clutching a sentimental book on romance that he refuses to divulge to Miss Kenton, she has to remove it from his hand and you sense he could almost caress her and touch her hair - he just chooses not to. 

Political discussions occur in front of Mr. Stevens who, once again, attends to his servile manner and has no opinion on such matters. He later finds that times are changing and the servant class is already on the decline (historical reports cite the early 1900's as the beginning of such a decline in England). There is a flashforward to 20 years later when the newspapers have sullied Lord Darlington's name and his reputation destroyed for being a Nazi sympathizer. Mr. Stevens is still employed at Darlington Hall yet it is now the home of a former American congressman (Christopher Reeve), Jack Lewis, who is quite wealthy and more open to Mr. Stevens' thoughts on household matters and vacation time. Jack had been reticent of supporting Germany when he visited Darlington Hall in the 1930's and we can tell, observing those rigid medium shots of Hopkins' Mr. Stevens, that Stevens is well aware of what was being said at those dinner banquets with all those foreign and domestic dignitaries - how could he not be aware? He is choosing to be blissfully ignorant but he also claims to read voraciously and we can only assume what grand selection of books Darlington has. Stevens could have been a man of stature if he chose (he pretends to be a gentleman at bar in the flashforwards), a man who could've climbed high in the arena of politics ("Realpolitik" as Mr. Lewis says). Stevens has been privy to many conversations between these aristocrats, knows how they think and their disdain for the lower classes, and still chooses not to expound or follow through such matters. 

"The Remains of the Day" is a sad, morose, exquisitely made tale and the sadness is in Mr. Stevens. It shows Stevens' has implicitly acknowledged in latter years that he has lost what he could have had. A life with Miss Kenton was in his future if he chose it yet, and this is what breaks my heart for him, when he has a reunion with Miss Kenton after her divorce, he is still choosing not to get romantically involved. You see Hopkins showing his eyes well up recognizing a life of service that has consumed him - it is all he ever knew. Love was around the corner and he chose a different route. When Miss Kenton takes off in a bus and we see her in tears, we also know it will be the last time they will ever see each other again. He's back at restoring dignity to Darlington Hall, all in a lifetime's work.   

He just wants to be liked

ZELIG (1983)

An Appreciation by Jerry Saravia

"Zelig" is no one, a complete nobody with no prospects and no sense of individuality. He is an isolated man, an insecure and antisocial nerd (pardon the parlance) who has an amazing ability - he can transform into other people just by being around them. He is a human chameleon who never finished reading Moby Dick. Why Moby Dick? Maybe because that is funnier than say "The Great Gatsby." 

Woody Allen's deliciously entertaining and highly unusual mockumentary is still howlingly funny from start to finish. Allen is completely convincing as Zelig, seen mostly in still photographs or faked newsreel footage where he stands alongside Eugene O'Neill or Warren G. Harding. Set during the late 1920's, it is conceivable that such a man like Zelig would capture the public's imagination and become synonymous with the likes of Charles Lindbergh. While adopting chameleonic capabilities, he transforms briefly into an Asian, a black musician, a "perfect" psychiatrist (which is what Zelig mostly believes he is) and even a mobster holding a cigar! Some of these transformations are likely to cause offense in 2025 yet, considering the time period it depicts, it only makes sense to bring up different ethnicities since Zelig wishes to be liked by everyone. To be fair, Allen as writer-director doesn't poke fun at other ethnicities, he merely becomes them without turning them into stereotypes (some will still find this film racist no matter what, call it cultural appropriation or whatever). Zelig becomes an instant freak show, exploited by his sister as if he was a circus freak. Allen digs deeper, showing Zelig as a human being who has a special ability that is never explained. The KKK never see him as anything other than a triple threat - you know, Jewish, black and a Native American. 

The crux of the film and its humanity is Zelig's developing relationship to his doctor Fletcher (Mia Farrow), a psychiatrist who is trying to cure him of his abnormal condition. She invites him to stay in her country home and film their talks, with Zelig fully aware he's being filmed and still believing he's a psychiatrist. One hysterical moment has Zelig under hypnosis as she asks him questions and tells her that he's in love with her and that her pancakes are of questionable taste.  

"Zelig" then dovetails into the amazing man's scandals, including fathering children with women he married. This causes a ruckus and forces Zelig to make a public apology, especially to the man whose appendix he took out ("If it's any consolation, I may still have it somewhere around the house".) Eventually, after being spotted in a crowd where Hitler makes one of his fiery speeches to the Nazis in a newsreel, Zelig eventually is back in America after Dr. Fletcher helps him escape. Their escape includes making a revolutionary flight around the world that not even Lindbergh could've bested - they fly the plane upside down!

"Zelig" is hilariously eccentric at every minute and has a warmth and sincerity to it - it feels like an authentic document of an authentic man yet it has a sunniness to it beyond its satirical trappings. Seeing it now, it feels like it embraces Leonard Zelig with a nostalgic glow, despite all the ups and downs of his life. His one regret is that he never finished reading Moby Dick. You just can't help but like Zelig for that.

German Expressionistic Allenisms

 SHADOWS AND FOG (1992)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Shadows and Fog" begins like a student film example on how to shoot a black-and-white film in a studio with deep shadows and lights that illuminate European streets and bridges. The look of the film is meant to evoke German Expressionism, though it also evokes Universal Horror films (which of course drew from German Expressionism). Woody Allen's homage also serves to complement Ingmar Bergman's beautiful classic films such as "The Seventh Seal." Still, the homage ends there, visually, since it is a Woody Allen comedy only with Kafkaesque tones. 

Kleinman (Allen, with more European-type spectacles) is rousted from bed in the middle of the night by a group of vigilantes trying to trap a strangler in the cobblestoned streets. They want Kleinman to join though they are rude and insensitive to him, treating him like an inferior, weak, meek-looking man (Typical Allen line: "I have the strength of a small boy...with polio.") The trouble is that Kleinman has no idea what he is supposed to or what his role is in entrapping this serial killer. Kleinman become a wandering novice, seeing shadows everywhere deep in the night and cat noises up in alleyways and near bridges. Nobody should be walking the dangerous foggy streets yet he finds other wanderers like a circus sword swallower named Irmy (Mia Farrow) who has left her cheating boyfriend. She and Kleinman have a discussion about the stars in the night sky with the absence of fog permitting. Then they catch his own boss peeking at a woman undressing, which almost costs Kleinman his job! 

Prior to her meeting Kleinman, we are introduced to Irmy who first ends up in a brothel with some voluptuous women, including Jodie Foster and Kathy Bates. A rich college student comes into play (an excellent John Cusack) who finds her to be the most desirable woman ever and pays her a sum of $700. Meanwhile, Irmy's boyfriend (John Malkovich), a circus clown who believes family is death to an artist, is looking for her recognizing his adulterous mistakes. When he finds her, he's mad that she sold her body and hates her and then says, "Come HOME!" I could not stop laughing at Malkovich who plays it straight.

Woody's nebbish fool doesn't want to discuss existential matters and can't perform sexually when he also ends up at the brothel. There is a litany of guest stars throughout the film who pop in and out so quickly, you'll probably miss most of them. Kate Nelligan is Kleinman's fiancee who shouts at him from a second story window, though you can barely make out that it is Nelligan. You have to be on high alert to catch William H. Macy as a police officer. Some roles truly stand out like Donald Pleasance's coroner bit, or the always magnificent Kenneth Mars as a drunk magician.   

"Shadows and Fog" is both haunting and remarkably funny with deep existential passages about life, love and death. I saw the film back in 1992 at the Jean Cocteau cinema in Santa Fe, NM, and let me say that it was the perfect, intimate venue for this film. It is one Woody Allen film I love to return to, to return to that world of darkness where there isn't much meaning other than trying to stay alive. It is an unnamed European town drenched in vivid atmosphere where anything can be around the corner. It also has the typical Allenisms about relationships and discussions on God while there is a killer on the loose. No classic and not a great movie but it is an original and tightly paced. One of the rare Woody Allen experiments that truly satisfies. 

Fraudulent, illogical Friedkin connections

 TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. (1985)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Sometimes movies give you no one to root for. The world depicted may be completely nihilistic containing nihilistic characters with no rooting interest. Perhaps the intention is to dramatize the machinations of such a world, one devoid of morality due to a crime-ridden society or other issues. Often the world of film noir encompasses such an off-kilter attitude. In William Friedkin's "To Live and Die in L.A.," there is no one to root for yet we are also not invested in the world it depicts, that being Secret Service men and counterfeiters. All are easily corruptible yet did the characters have to be so unappealing?

"To Live and Die in L.A." begins with a thrilling sequence inside a hotel rooftop where an assassination is about to occur by a jihadist screaming about Israel and Saudi Arabia. President Reagan is giving a talk in the hotel lobby and it is up to Secret Service agents Richard Chance (William Petersen) and Jimmy Hart (Michael Greene) to provide top notch security. Richard catches an odd detail when a waiter places a tray of food on the floor and pursues the individual who turns out to be the jihadist. The problem is solved with the jihadist blowing himself up on the rooftop thanks to Chance's near-retirement partner, Jimmy. 

The crux of the film deals with these agents wanting to apprehend Eric "Rick" Masters (Willem Dafoe, a hellishly good actor playing a one-dimensional role), an artist who burns his drawings and works on the side as a successful counterfeiter to be reckoned with. Masters is a dangerous, impulsive killer as well and when Jimmy dies uncovering the counterfeiting location, hotheaded Chance is on it. He wants to nail Masters for killing his older partner yet it seems Chance is corrupted by sin, not by good intentions. He attends to a paroled female informant (whom he occasionally boinks), and if she falls out of line, she will be back in jail. Chance will do anything he can to foil Masters' plan and slowly we realize that he either identifies with Masters or wants to be him or take glory in a criminal's life by becoming a criminal himself. Some of that shows in a truly well-executed freeway chase where he has apprehended another criminal carrying 50K (thanks to Chance's informant). Some of that money will be used as front money for Masters since Chance and his new by-the-book partner Vukovich (John Pankow) pretend to be Florida men wanting a piece of Masters' pie. The two nitwit agents just forgot to tan themselves. 

The movie, unfortunately, has a schizophrenic tone and it is so uneven and so thinly characterized that it is impossible to know what Chance ultimately wants. The guy is unprincipled, reckless and a complete bastard yet Petersen is never allowed to show much humanity (he never shows any remorse about losing his original partner). And we can never tell if he is just too dumb, too easily corrupted by Masters or just simply an amoral person. I am all for showing how corruption spreads from criminals to people who are supposed to protect us but this movie is all over the map. Nothing in it registers as credible or believable, not even the freeway chase which leads to no major denouement (Chance practically gets away with it, which includes a couple of murders). Then there is an unbelievable ending involving Vukovich and Chance's informant - it is so ridiculous that I wanted to laugh at it, not with it. It blows the whole film to smithereens creating a world of illogic. 

"To Live and Die in L.A." is watchable in the sense that you wonder what other extraneous, histrionic moment will come next. It is not a real movie - it is simply a counterfeit.