Change Your Image
brobstreperous
Reviews
La Cucaracha (1998)
Not-so-innocent abroad
Hoping to flee a life of all-American banality, Walter Pool (Eric Roberts)begins anew in Mexico with the aim of writing a novel. He only succeeds in becoming an alcoholic loner, as he lacks the drive and verbal polish to become a writer. His routinized escape from routine does take on a new twist when he becomes involved with shady characters who do have drive (a willingness to deceive and kill to meet their ends), and verbal polish (speaking in over-the-top purple prose to justify their crimes.)
*La Cucaracha* unveils the hollowness of cultivated words and calculated appearances (e.g. the crime king in Armani suits speaks of the ennobling power of suffering, sheds copious tears and makes spectacular shows of philanthropy); however, actions ultimately reveal character. As Pool, Eric Roberts succeeds in playing a man whose verbal inarticulateness painfully reflects his moral inarticulateness. Even though he can't find his writer's voice, does he still have a voice of conscience? Does he have the will to transform his life through action, whether corrupt or heroic? Not since *Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia* have I seen the "loser in search of redemption in a tragic, corrupt world" theme played so well.
Although Eric Roberts' acting is superb (especially the scene in which he finally meets and breaks down before the woman he had so idolized), *La Cucaracha* is definitely not for everyone. There is no morally unambiguous hero, and the violence is somewhat heavy, though not mindless--the consequences of violence are frequently the subject of deliberation and remorse. Some might find the dialogue a bit stilted, although it might be more fairly compared to older noir films rather than the quick, punchy dialogue in a lot of recent crime films. If you like noir, character studies of ex-pat drifters, *and* Eric Roberts (his *Coca-Cola Kid*/*Star 80* caliber performances, as opposed to the *Best of the Best Series*), then this could well be for you.
Battlefield Earth (2000)
Spot the rip-off contest!
Note: the following comment contains as many *spoilers* as a college dorm refrigerator. Read on if you've already seen *Battlefield Earth* (or if you just plan on watching it for tremendous amusement).
A gem among the bargain-basement films of our time. Battlefield Earth was fully worth the $1.50 at the local second-rate (sorry, second-run) theater. When I first saw this with my husband, I snorted with laughter louder than the big-budget explosions in the film. As I have never snorted publicly, we invited 2 friends and film-buffs to the second showing. I think we may have offended the Scientologists a few rows in front of us, and we did try to keep our laughter down. We played a fun game where we tried to name all the films director Christian ripped-off. As our memory has faded a bit, here is a partial list. Feel free to contribute more to the `Battlefield-Earth-Spot-A-Rip-off-Game!' Of note are Planet of the Apes (city ruin scenes looked almost exact), Blade Runner (Johnny-the underdog hero--running through the exact number of window-panes as the Replicant), Dune (overhead city shots), Braveheart (braided-hairstyles, bad Scottish fading accents, hokey `we must unify' speech), Matrix (Johnny running through exploding building parts), Star Wars (Planet Psychlo like Death Star), Logan's Run (ruins of Washington D.C). Let's not forget that the Psychlos themselves look like the lovechild of the Klingons and the Kiss Army. And they seem to have this hearing problem too: during the scene where Terl (John Travolta, the head Psychlo) finds out he has to stay on earth for 50 more cycles, the cheap-effect echo of evil laughter made me wonder if someone had hooked up their Beltone hearing aid to the speakers.
Ah, the inconsistencies.they are enough to make you weep for the End of Days. We'll just mention a few major spoilers here, but honestly, the film itself is so predictable that most viewers will be able to get the miraculous underdog plot from the intro credits. The female love interest is very suave for a cavegirl. (Granted her 80's aerobi-chick look is somewhat primitive, but it's still a far cry from what you'd expect from a culture with no knowledge of orthodontics or plastic surgery). Cave men and women are well groomed if they are main actors but grungy if supporting actors. In the earth city-ruins, the malls had deteriorated into dust, but not libraries, military equipment, or anything else convenient to the plot. In the Psychlo compound, the amount of backstabbing and `leverage' is so monumental that I have a hard time believing that any society could function with so much chaos. It makes Machivelli seem like a kiddy-ride. (And they expect us to believe that Terl continues to drink from the same bartender he had blackmailed and ruined? I guess the Psychlos haven't mastered the art of the Mickey Finn).
In Battlefield Earth, Man animals were considered too stupid to mine (until programmed to do so), yet the Psychlos have them mining (and oxidizing metal) in an earlier scene when Johnny runs through without his breathing mask. And don't they stamp the gold bars at Fort Knox with marks? Seems I remember hearing about that in junior high school. This would increase the chance that the gold bars are detected by the Psychlos as not mined by the man-animals.
The most obvious inconsistency (noted by other critics) was that originally the Psychlos `defeated your people in seven minutes.' Yet 1000 years later, using miraculously intact (and technologically obsolete) hardware, the skin-wearing man-animals, thanks to a crash course in Euclidean geometry, can fly fighter jets and whup Psychlo ass . . . `Piece of cake!' (This amuses me, since I've been to the same Fort Hood, Texas a few years ago and the military weapons were already rusted.) And if man animals are considered too stupid, why would the Psycho's stick around for a 1000 years to teach them to mine? Whittaker's character (the Psychlo second in command) has such a pained look on his face that it makes his portrayal of a tortured hostage in the Crying Game look gentle. I have a feeling that he was a little embarrassed by this film. Whittaker's character executes Johnny's best friend. Whittaker then becomes Johnny's natural choice for chief Psychlo advisor. And speaking of pain, Terl doesn't register any pain when his arm is blown off. Hummm.
I'm also not sure with all the tear jerking scenes if they were trying to make the Psychlos seem mean or not. We see them senselessly blow away cows to humans, dangle people over cliffs and play death games. It's all so subtle.
Not so subtle were the blatant promotions for technology being man's salvation. I ask you, would you want to learn from the invaders that tortured your race for a 1,000 years? It doesn't make for good Scientology propaganda. My friend got the Scientology heebie-jeebies at the concept of `Leverage.' Characters are always trying to get dirt on other Psychlos: much like the Church of Scientology's (CoS) own techniques for extorting members and forcing them to give good PR. (It makes one pause to think, was Travolta blackmailed into this travesty, and yet decided to make it so deliberately bad that it would fail as propaganda?) Is the brainwashing scene with Johnny just a little reminiscent of those personality tests that the CoS gives to hapless passers-by? And why would the Psychlo brainwashers provide their enemy with specific knowledge about how to destroy their entire civilization?
The resolution of these mysteries must only be available to those who pay for advanced Scientology seminars.
Religious films can be very inspiring. But I'm sorry, I like to see people come to their faith or perspectives by insight and exploration, but not exploitation. Then again, ripping off people's minds can be very cost-effective, especially if you rip-off other people's movies.
The cynical crusaders