Cherry 2000 (1987)

Title: Cherry 2000 (1987)

Director: Steve De Jarnatt

Cast: Melanie Griffith, David Andrews, Pamela Gidley, Laurence Fishburne, Brion James, Tim Thomerson, Robert Z’Dar

Review:

Cherry 2000 is one of those movies that once completed; had the head honchos over at Orion Pictures  scratching their heads, trying to figure out how to sell the picture. A Romantic post apocalyptic movie? Do they sell it to the female demographic because its lead is an actress and it has romantic elements attached to it? Or do they sell it to the male audience, because of its post-apocalyptic/action/adventure elements? Is it a comedy or an action film, or what? This ambiguity held the film back, not knowing who to sell the movie to always gives studio heads cold feet. This insecurity from part of the studio is what killed the movie. Even though it was filmed in 1985, it ended up being released in theaters in 1987! And that was only in foreign countries! It made its way to American audiences through home video market in 1988 which is when I first got a glimpse of it and where it acquired its current cult status. It wasn’t even deemed worthy of a theatrical release in the United States; as a result, the film was a huge flop. I guess it was just too off beat for some people.  But was it? Read on my friends!

The perfect couple?

Cherry 2000 is all about a guy named Sam Treadwell, a guy who’s extremely happy because he has this smoking hot blonde bomb shell waiting for him at home. She looks beautiful, she has dinner ready for him (his favorite dish: Cheese Burgers and French Fries!) and she has nothing but good things to say to Sam. She’s also willing to have sex on the kitchen floor at the tip of a hat! No problemo! Oh wait, I failed to mention that this magical lady is also a cyborg! A robotic model called Cherry 2000! So one day, when Sam and Cherry are ‘doing it’ on the kitchen floor, they get so into each other that they don’t realize that the dishwasher is over flowing and the soapy water begins to pour all over the floor; they are so into each other that they don’t care. Problem is that Cherry is a cyborg, and the soapy water messes up her circuits! She ends up shorting out right there on the kitchen floor! What’s Sam to do now that he doesn’t have his ‘perfect woman’? Send a bounty hunter to find the same model that’s what! And there’s no better bounty hunter for the job than E. Johnson. The real problem is that this Cherry 2000 model is so old that one of the few remaining models can only be found in a post apocalyptic wasteland called ‘Zone 7’. Will E. Johnson and Sam find the new Cherry 2000 and make it out of Zone 7 alive? 

So yeah, I think it’s safe to say that this film is ‘off beat’, but not off beat enough to deserve the kick in the groin that it got from the studio, I mean, I’ve seen far stranger films that’s for sure. Still, I have to admit that a romantic/post-apocalyptic/comedy/action/adventure is quite the mash up of genres. Genre mixing is a risky move for any studio, but some times the illusion of novelty that these films offer works; for example Back to the Future III (1990) a film that mixed science fiction elements with a western, or Army of Darkness (1992) which was a mixture of horror and slapstick comedy with a good measure of adventure thrown in.  Since Cherry 2000 is a difficult film to categorize within a particular genre, well, it then becomes a hard sell because the studio doesn’t know on what channel or magazine they are going to spend their advertising money.  The thing about Hollywood is that they like a sure thing, and films like Cherry 2000 do not offer them that. Hollywood will rarely take a chance with films of this nature.

But this doesn’t make Cherry 2000 any less watchable, and films like this always find their audience one way or another. Monster Squad (1987) is an example I always use. Monster Squad was a mixed genre film. It mixed a kids movie, with monsters. Hollywood didn’t know who to sell it too, it was too scary for kids and too kiddie for adults. As a result, the film was a box office flop even though it was actually a good flick. Audiences found it anyway on home video, and so, Monster Squad’s is currently one of those beloved cult classics people can’t seem to get enough of. Melanie Griffith says that Cherry 2000 is her least favorite movie (must be all those shameless one liners she hurls through out the whole film) yet recognizes that it has a cult following. What is it that people find likable about Cherry 2000? It could be various things, but one of them has to be Melanie Griffith looking all sorts of hot, she’s sexy and tough all rolled up into one. She’s a one liner spewing loner with a heart of gold. She’s a kick ass driver, and has a cool looking red mustang with buttons and doo dads that make the car go faster. She fires freaking rocket launchers for god sakes! This is one tough chick, which equals sexy on many a fan boys book. E. Johnson is the quintessential ‘bad girl’. Then there’s of course her car, which I should have included in my 40 Memorable Movie Cars article I wrote a while back. The car is all sorts of awesome and it of course steals the show in some sequences, the most memorable one of course is the one where E. Johnson shoots her guns while hanging from her red mustang, which is being dangled over the Hoover Dam. Which by the way I have to commend, that was a real stunt. Not CGI, not miniatures…that’s a real car and a real stunt person hanging from that car! The sequence is the most spectacular in the whole film.

Thematically speaking, Cherry 2000 speaks about, amongst other things, classism. Sam and E. Johnson encounter a colony of survivors who live on top of a mountain called “Sky Ranch”. They have all the commodities, have all the parties, all the food, but it you are not like them, they’ll probably end up killing you. The film also addresses women’s rights; the idea that women are not robots, or sex slaves or merely there to have your meal ready when you get home. The film speaks about women’s right to an opinion, to express themselves, to have careers, to have feelings that need to be taken into consideration.  Basically, the film speaks rather bluntly about how women aren’t in this world to serve men as slaves. They have their own lives to live and their own choices to make; and E. Johnson is representative of that. She’s the anti-thesis of what some men expect of a woman. Sam is the typical guy who thinks all he wants is this pretty little house wife who looks beautiful all day long and will have his dinner ready when he gets back. E. Johnson is the independent girl who knows how to look out for herself, she’s opinionated, driven and has time for love and sweetness at the same time. In the end, this is a film that speaks about accepting each other the way we are, warts and all. Nobody is perfect, so why should we expect perfection from others? 

Ultimately, this isn’t the best film ever made. It has action and likable characters, but sometimes runs into dull areas. It’s a mish-mash of genres, but if you’re ready for that well, you should have no problem. Also, the film is peppered with cameos from genre favorites like a very young Lawrence Fishburne playing a lawyer in a dance club called ‘The Glu Glu Glub’. We also get to see Brion James and even the big jawed dude Robert D’Zar, better known for his contributions to Maniac Cop (1988). The one who will probably get the most recognition from hardcore genre veterans is Tim Thomerson as Lester, the leader of the crazy colonists. Some of you genre loving fans out there might recognize him from many Full Moon productions like Dollman (1991) and Trancers (1985) where he played the time traveling dude, Jack Death. Many will probably see a bit of  Mad Max in Cherry 2000 because of its post apocalyptic roots, but in all honesty, it reminded me more of Susan Seidelman’s Making Mr. Right (1987) only in reverse. On that one the nature of relationships is also explored by using cyborgs as the main thrust for the film, only on that one it was a male cyborg played by John Malkovich. This of course proves once again that one of the best film genres to explore the realities and complexities of humanity is science fiction.  

Rating: 2 ½ out of 5

Lolita (1997)

Title: Lolita (1997)

Director: Adrian Lyne

Writer: Stephen Schiff

Cast: Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, Melanie Griffith, Frank Langella

Review:

On my review for Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita (1962), I mentioned that that particular version was a prisoner of its time, and it's true, the book on which the film is based on (Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita) is a novel about a  man who falls in love with a 12 year old. For all intents and purposes, it’s a story of pedophilia. Surprisingly as this may sound, considering how sexual a lot of Stanley Kubrick's films are, his version of Lolita is restrained in the sexual aspects of the story, failing to go where its story begs for it to go to. It fades to black in key sequences, and lets the audience imagine what is happening between Professor Humbert and Lolita. Fast forward more than 30 years later and director Adrian Lyne decides he wants to do another take on Nabokov’s novel. Was this version also restrained, or did it go further?

Lolita is the story of Professor Humbert Humbert, and man who suddenly finds himself playing with the notion of falling in love with a 15 year old girl, a child. He even goes as far as marrying Lolita’s mother so that he can be closer to Lolita! Will Humbert control his aberrant thoughts? Or will he move forward with his desires? And what will the outcome of his actions be?

I was a bit disappointed with Kubrick’s version of Lolita. Not that its badly directed or acted or anything. It was just one of those films that are kind of hard to digest. It was deliberately slow paced, it didn’t go all the way with its themes because of the conservative times it was made in, but the performances pulled me in and the story of course grabbed me, because I wanted to see how Humbert and Lolita would end up, would their crazy idea of a relationship work? But mostly, I stuck with Kubrick’s film all the way to the end for one main reason: its Kubrick, and I have to watch every Kubrick film before I die no matter what I do. I ended up liking the film even with its ‘flaws’.

On the other hand, Adrian Lyne’s version of Lolita was actually a pleasure to watch. Not that Im into stories about pedophiles, Im speaking more of the way the film was shot, wow. Lyne really captured some beautiful imagery on this film. He framed every shot perfectly, he filmed in beautiful locations, and got the best performances he could out of these actors. He pulled of a story that is not easy to tell, in a very beautiful way. My hands down to Mr. Lyne for filming such a beautiful looking picture. I really enjoy Lyne’s directing style. He frames things perfectly and beautifully, but he also gets right in there in the action, making you feel as if you are right there in the movie with the characters. There is one scene where Lolita comes back into the house running through the stairs to meet with Humbert so she could say goodbye to him. When Lolita is going up the steps, you feel like you are right there with her because of the way the scene was shot. Bravo, Mr. Lyne. Its no surprise this director has made one of my favorite horror films ever: Jacobs Ladder; yet another film that is visually striking. So be ready for some beautiful imagery with this version of Lolita.

The theme for this film are controversial, some might think the film favors pedophilia, which it doesn’t. Humbert and Lolita’s outcome is a testament to that. This film did come closer to capturing the developing intricacies of Humbert and Lolita’s strange relationship. It focuses on those little details, those little moments that are decisive in moving forward with a relationship, in this sense, I have to say that this film developed everything better than Kubrick’s version did. Kubrick's version was afraid of its themes, while this version embraces them. You see Humbert oogling on Lolita, you can see machinations forming in Humbert’s brain, you can tell this man wants Lolita in his arms. And Lolita is more of a provocateur in this film, she is the one pushing Humbert’s buttons as well. Dominique Swain, the actress who plays Lolita was only 15 when she shot this, but Adrian Lyne filmed her more erotic scenes with a body double. This illusion works perfectly well, for I didn’t notice it until I recently read about it. Still, the sex scenes are not graphic at all, it’s the idea that grabs and shocks you. But we're not here to see Jeremy Irons making out with a 15 year old girl, this film is after all a morality play, we want to explore what is the right thing to do. And if you choose to do the wrong thing, what are the consequences?

What I loved about Kubrick’s version more than anything was Peter Seller’s performance as Claire Quilty. The guy who tries to “rescue” Lolita from Prof. Humbert’s claws. It was such a crazy performance, the character comes off as kind of nuts, psychologically damaged. On Lynes film this character is played by Frank Langella, a solid actor if there ever was any. Langella brings an air of disgust and depravity to his character. Quilty is on screen for a very short time on this film, yet he is incredibly mysterious, and at the same time intensely revolting. A sexually aberrant individual. A despicable character, but a great performance!

All in all, a great movie. The controversy surrounding the thematic elements made it difficult for this movie to take off at the box office. It actually got a very small theatrical run and was later premiered on cable tv. I was surprised to discover that this film didn’t even get any Oscar Nominations when it so obviously should have gotten many awards. I guess this shows just how conservative the members of the academy are. This movie should have at least been nominated for cinematography, but alas, it was ignored by the academy that year. I guess Titanic was “king of the world” on that year and Lolita was completely ignored because of that. A shame, because even though this films thematic elements speak of a very ugly truth; this is actually a very beautiful film to look at. A true work of art.

Rating: 5 out of 5