Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Michael Bay is a director with maybe too much ambition with his work, to say the least. He doesn’t even hold a good track record with his films (examples are “Bad Boys,” “Armageddon,” “Pearl Harbor,” and “Bad Boys II”). He has many trademarks of his own—swift camera movements, frantic editing, two-and-a-half hours of running time, colorful stereotypes, intense slow motion shots of characters, tight close-ups, intense music cues, and even more notably, over-the-top visuals. He made one terrific film so far out of all of those elements—a solid thriller called “The Rock.” Now here’s Michael Bay’s “Transformers,” which almost serves as a parody of Michael Bay’s earlier films. We get just about every trademark from Michael Bay, with a handful of CGI metal robots called Transformers, based upon a popular toy franchise by Hasbro.

This is a totally preposterous and goofy-fun movie in which good Transformers and evil Transformers fight on our world, and a group of central human characters are caught in the middle of the war and race to aid the good Transformers (called Autobots) in holding the key to Earth’s survival.

These Transformers are marvelous creatures to behold. They fold and unfold like Rubik’s cubes from automobile to giant robot and then back again. Both races of robots are drawn to Earth because decades ago, the fearsome leader of the evil Transformers (called Decepticons) named Megatron crash-landed there. It is said now that he holds the All-Spark, a cube that is the key to the rebirth of their dying home planet Cybertron.

The central human characters are introduced in different subplots. We meet armed services, including Sgt. Lennox (John Duhamel) and Tech. Sgt. Epps (Tyrese Gibson), who are attacked by a helicopter that transforms into a Decepticon. These guys are under the impression that this ten-foot-tall metal robot can be put down easily with automatic gunfire, and much later, they’re fighting a scorpion-like Decepticon in the middle of the desert. Then we meet the Secretary of Defense (Jon Voight) who is trying to figure out what exactly attacked the armed forces, with help from computer whizzes, including the beautiful, Australian blonde Maggie (Rachael Taylor) and optimistic hacker Glen (Anthony Anderson, overacting but funny). The political satire of this movie is that the Secretary of Defense is seemingly running the country while the President is relaxing on Air Force One, asking for a Ding-Dong.

There’s another character that is crucial to the story. His name is Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and he’s a teenager who just bought his first car—a rundown yellow Camaro with racing stripes and apparently, a mind of its own. He uses it to try and pick up the popular girl in school named Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox, not entirely convincing as a high school student, but wow, is she great to look at) and the radio pretty much plays what Sam is thinking, kind of like Herbie the Love Bug. But it turns out that the car is actually an Autobot named Bumblebee. His job is to protect Sam from the Decepticons because apparently, he holds the key to Earth’s survival—a pair of glasses with a sort of map imprinted in the lenses that leads to the All-Spark (I would like to explain why there is a map on the glasses, but I’m almost getting exhausted trying to piece together the plot myself).

Oh, and I should also mention the character of the secret ops guy (John Turturro) who runs a top-secret government facility called Sector Seven and is holding the now-frozen Megatron underground. He has the priceless line, “Do you want to lay the fate of the world on a kid’s Camaro?”

All of these character plotlines lead down to the big epic battle between the Autobots and the Decepticons. And that’s when I started to grow tired and bored. I loved the setup—the characters were colorful and appealing, if not fully-developed, and the action sequences in which the armed forces shoot up Decepticons in the desert is fun. And these Transformers look great. Created by Industrial Lights and Magic, they are truly sights to behold. In their true forms, you can still see the outside parts of the automobile they transformed from—hubcaps, windshields, and all metal. Their movements are incredible and their transforming is amazing. There is also a spiderlike robot that creeps around Air Force One, hacking into the computer for information about the All-Spark. I loved watching these creations but even so, it was hard to pay much attention to the big battle in the final half. The robots fight each other in the big city, causing millions of dollars damage to buildings and cars. The military is firing at the Decepticons. The music is extremely intense. I’m thinking, “OK, OK, calm down a little bit.”

This, I think, is Michael Bay’s weakest point—giving us never-ending epic battles that don’t catch our attentions. The movie is 144 minutes. By the way, I have to ask—why does Michael Bay always love his films to be two-and-a-half hours long? Does he think one of his films will be the next big epic, this side of “Titanic?”

The CGI is impressive in the climax, but I think if the scene was trimmed down in the editing a little bit, this movie would’ve been something great. Instead, “Transformers” is only something good and worthy of three stars.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I can’t deny it—Will Ferrell is a very funny guy. Watching him run naked on a street in “Old School” or acting like a man-child in a tight elf suit in “Elf,” I can see that Will Ferrell is not afraid to take chances in making us laugh. He has a goofy, likable presence and proves he can carry a movie well with his gift. With “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,” he brings his goofy charm to a new (maybe even unhealthy) level. He plays Ron Burgundy, a self-absorbed, legendary top news anchor residing in San Diego. His catchphrase: “You stay classy, San Diego.” He’s the main character in “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,” a vulgar, slapstick, satirical comedy that is very funny and is helped by Ferrell and the strong supporting cast. However, the laugh ratio is only half as funny as Ferrell’s previous films, but it’s still a pretty good ratio.

“Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” takes place in the 70s, a time before cable and VCR—a time when everyone listened to the news, only men were allowed to anchor the news, and everyone was as classy as a clown on his day off, so to speak. While “This is Spinal Tap” was a satire about rock music, “Anchorman’s” satirical subject matter is broadcast television in the 70s. First, we get a narration by Bill Curtis, and then we see the typical TV intros to the “Channel 4 News Team,” in which Ron Burgundy and the three other team news members seem like one big happy family. There are also these silly news stories they have to cover, such as a waterskiing squirrel and a Panda Watch to make sure the news is able to capture on camera a panda giving birth.

The other news team members are Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Brick Tamland (Steve Carell), and Champ Kind (David Koechner). They get together with Ron to talk about vulgar subjects, swap manly stories, and, yes, even sing “Afternoon Delight” when they’re alone. They are all talk when it comes to women, while they are secretly terrified of them. And then they start to get cold feet when a striking blonde woman named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by Ed, the station’s news manager (played by the always-reliable Fred Willard), to bring “diversity” to the station. They have a problem because she’s a WOMAN and only MEN are allowed to say the news. The dumbest of them, Brick, warns the others that, “women’s periods attract bears.” Ron and Veronica are attracted to each other, but as co-workers, they keep getting involved in many brawls.

This is a funny movie that almost comes close to being tedious when we see the ridiculousness of this news team one time too many. But they’re a likable and funny bunch. After all this, Ron does turn out to be a nice guy. And Veronica, while trying to keep her reputation as a serious anchor on the line, still loves this dim person.

It’s also funny for the obvious reason—the actor’s improvisations are funny. Every comic actor knows that they can come up with better lines of dialogue than most of what the script has to offer, and so they just go all out. And also, there are many scenes that are very funny and quite memorable. One features Brian as he tries to impress Veronica by wearing cologne that smells “worse than the time the raccoon got in the copier.” And then there’s the brawl in an alleyway involving every news team in San Diego, complete with cameos by actors I will not give away. You’ll know them when you see them, don’t worry. Oh, I should also mention that this brawl has a heavy amount of violence. Mostly, it’s played for laughs.

Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, and David Koechner make for some effective comedic foil, Christina Applegate is fantastic as the sort-of Cameron Diaz type of comedic female role, and Fred Willard, as if predictably, is invaluable. But it’s really Will Ferrell who scores big time here. He becomes this character and makes him into such a great comedic presence. He makes “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” his own movie.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

To tell the truth, the idea has always fascinated me. Imagine being a teenager, and you and your high-school friends are the last line of defense against an army of soldiers who invade your home. It’s a great characteristic of the term “unlikely heroes” in that the heroes are all teenagers with hardly any experience in military tactics. 1984’s “Red Dawn” is a classic example of that idea—in that film, a high school football team became America’s guerilla force when foreign armies invaded.

But now it’s time for teenagers from Down Under to take charge in “Tomorrow, When the War Began.”

Based on the first entry in the “Tomorrow” novel series, “Tomorrow, When the War Began” introduces a group of Australian teenagers who ultimately decide to turn the tables on the foreign army that has taken over their home.

It all begins when they skip the Australia Day festival to go on a camping trip in a remote land dubbed “Hell.” Why is it called Hell? Well…they say it’s because people give uninviting names to places they don’t understand, but let’s be honest—they call it “Hell” so they have fun with saying what a paradise “Hell” is. They even share a toast, “To Hell!”

One night, they notice military aircraft racing over them and don’t think much of them until they all return home to learn that the electricity is out, their houses are empty, the phone lines are down, and their families and friends have been taken, some of which executed, by a faceless enemy. The only lights on in town are the hospital and the fairgrounds, where the people are held.

Who is this army? Why do they pick this place to invade? I don’t know. They don’t address it. If they did, they did it briefly. Unlike in “Red Dawn,” there’s no movement of Communism to be found here—in fact, we never even have a scene featuring just the enemy. We just stay with these teenagers as they’re forced to do whatever they can to survive their attack and find some way to strike back.

This is fun. This is just what I wanted in this idea—teenagers banding together to fight an army. The idea is fun and there are some well-crafted action sequences for us to endure throughout the movie, as the teens use their limited resources to fight. For example, in the middle of the film, three of the kids are being chased by enemy soldiers in these really nifty armed buggies, and having to escape by driving a garbage truck. But it’s OK, because the farmer girl can drive a tractor! How hard can a big truck like this be?

Oh, and what do they do to slow the enemy down? Dump the rubbish, of course!

“Tomorrow, When the War Began” doesn’t require a lot of thinking on our parts. The best way to enjoy this movie is to accept it as a film about teenagers who know their home better than these heavily armed, totally overpowering foreign soldiers, and use that to their advantage. The climax is quite fun, as they come up with a plan to blow up the Heron Bridge so nothing more from the enemy will be deposited (easily) from outside. The funniest part of this sequence—two of the girls talk about their crushes, turn off their two-way radios in embarrassment, and are unable to hear their friends’ warnings that a few soldiers are approaching their way. In this way, it’s interesting to see a culture brought into something that they were clearly not prepared for, and that could describe the whole movie.

And give it some credit for actually having a conscience about the issue of killing human beings in order to stay ahead. Is it right to kill in battle? Who’s to decide, really?

Almost all of the young heroes look as if they stepped out of an Abercrombie & Fitch ad, but they’re all pretty good actors and make decent, ironic use of their characters’ stereotypes (for example, one’s a Christian pacifistic girl who will eventually pick up a gun when she has no choice). In particular, Caitlin Stasey, as the protagonist Ellie, shows a great mix of anger and vulnerability. The other actors are Rachel Hurd-Wood (“Peter Pan”) as Ellie’s best friend Corrie, Lincoln Lewis as the cowardly Kevin, Deniz Akdeniz as bad-boy Homer, Chris Pang as Ellie’s romantic interest Lee, Ashleigh Cummings as the aforementioned Christian pacifist Robyn, and Phoebe Tonkin as rich-girl Fiona.

Oh, and I forgot to mention their school chum Chris (Andy Ryan), whom they meet midway through the film. He’s a stoner character who is of absolutely no purpose except to display poor comic relief. This character is not only useless; he’s also very obnoxious.

The ending is weak, obviously setting up for a sequel. The book series this is based upon has seven entries and this ending to the first adaptation is obviously so confident that it will spawn a sequel. That is probably my biggest pet peeve when it comes to adapting “firsts” in a series of books, because just setting up for a sequel doesn’t automatically guarantee one. As I’m typing this, plans for a sequel to “Tomorrow, When the War Began” aren’t exactly in demand. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Warning: Possible Spoiler Alert

1988—a century since the serial murders committed by Jack the Ripper. This time around, someone is repeating those same murders—a copycat killer. It doesn’t really help that the obvious killer’s name seems to be “Jack.” If that premise sounds like it’d never work as a film, “Jack’s Back” is surprisingly effective in never giving us the obvious, expected elements. This is a gripping thriller—not an exploitation film.

The poster and trailer don’t make “Jack’s Back” seem as interesting as it is. The poster, in particular, has this tagline: “One hundred years ago, in the city of London, a man shocked the world by raping, murdering, and mutilating women…He was never caught.” The marketing for this movie must have thought we were dumb. It’s an insult to movie audiences’ intelligence.

James Spader stars in “Jack’s Back” as two characters—twin brothers who are linked to these new murders. One brother is a medical student named John and the other is a rebel named Rick who runs a shoe store and has been in trouble with the law in the past. (This may be a spoiler, since we don’t find out until the first half-hour that there is another brother.) It’s interesting how Spader creates two different personalities.

John discovers one of the murderer’s victims and Rick is a prime suspect. How could they think Rick is a suspect instead of John? Well…(possible spoiler alert) John is killed a half-hour into the film. This is after John discovers of the murderer’s victims. John was seen leaving the room while chasing after the possible murderer named Jack. Since John and Rick are twins, Rick is suspected for the murders.

And so as the movie’s second half comes into place, Rick is chased by the police and races to clear his name. To his aid is a possible love interest—an attractive medical student named Christine, played by Cynthia Gibb. But she may be the killer’s new target.

“Jack’s Back” does a great deal in interesting us with his many plot gimmicks (there’s an unexpected surprise in the plot every ten or twenty minutes) and the idea of someone copying the Jack the Ripper murders is creepy on its own. And then there’s the ending, which I wouldn’t dare give away. (No spoilers beyond the half-hour mark of the film will be exposed here!) This is a hard move to make for a thriller and it doesn’t do a great job, but a good one. What really makes this movie worth watching, aside from the interesting plot gimmicks, is the performance by James Spader. He’s a great actor who makes his twin-brother characters seem extremely different. And because he plays two good guys, this doesn’t mean he has to be dull or boring. For example, John (who is supposedly the better one of the two brothers) has his share of one-liners and kidding charisma—he’s not the stuck-up, serious medical student you’d expect. And with Rick, he’s not the delinquent we’d expect him to be. He’s just a good guy who gets into trouble at times because he can’t help himself at times. But when he rises to the occasion, we do like him. James Spader is fantastic in this movie.

Cynthia Gibb is also good as the love interest. Her timing with Spader is very effective. Both Spader and Gibb play three-dimensional characters who don’t dumb down their roles. That’s a very tricky performance for one, let along two, in a movie that is a thriller.

“Jack’s Back” is a thriller through and through. What’s surprising is that most of the time, it’s not as routine as we’d expect. I enjoyed “Jack’s Back”—I enjoyed the performances from Spader and Gibb and the contrivances of the plot.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Mummy” is a special-effects action movie that is not by any means a great piece of work, hardly anywhere in the same league as “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” It’s trash, yes, but it is good trash that entertained me from start to finish. I had a good time with this silly action flick.

Actually, beneath the action/adventure elements, there is a great deal of comedy—so much that you have to wonder if the filmmakers were intending on creating a parody of these action-adventure stories. To take “The Mummy” seriously would be as ridiculous as anything the story has to offer. As a thriller, it doesn’t work. As a campy, special-effects filled, funny action movie, “The Mummy” does work. I wasn’t bored in the two hours of the film’s running time. I was very entertained.

The film begins with a flashback to (“insert year here”) BC with heavy-handed narration from a very deep voice within scenes that explain the back story to us. We all love it when that happens, don’t we? We also love it when the narrator informs us that a mummy will rise.

Then we flash forward to many centuries later to the early 1920s in Cairo. A clumsy British librarian named Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) and her immature, pickpocketing brother Jonathan (John Hannah) have found a map that leads to the lost city of Hamunaptra in Egypt, also known as “The Land of the Dead” (whoa, not a good sign). Joined by American adventurer Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser), they decide to take a trip down there to retrieve a lost treasure within its tombs. But also racing to retrieve the treasure is a band of American fortune hunters, led by a nervous traitor named Beny (annoyingly played by Kevin J. O’Connor with a less-than-convincing Arabic accent). Threatening to kill both teams to protect the treasure is a band of black-robed horsemen.

While down there, Rick, Evelyn, and Jonathan come across an ancient sarcophagus and a book known as the “Book of the Dead.” (Uh-oh.) And wouldn’t you know it? They open the book, unleashing the ten plagues of Egypt, although I only counted less than 10 that actually happen in this movie—I’ve seen fireballs, locusts, blood flowing in rivers, earthquakes, and flies. There are also many, many flesh-eating beetles, although I’m unsure if they’re part of the plagues or if they just live in the caves. Also unleashed from the grave is the mummy Prince Imhotep, which starts out as a disgusting skeleton, but can reproduce organs just by taking them from the rival American team. Once he is complete, he will raise his dead girlfriend and rule the world. Of course Evelyn is captured by the mummy, which causes Rick to set out and “save the girlfriend, kill the bad guy, and save the world.”

All of this is good dumb fun. As I mentioned above, there is also a great deal of comedy within the action/adventure stuff. One of the best moments is at the beginning, in which we get a glimpse of Evelyn’s clumsiness—she accidentally knocks over a bookshelf and the rest of the shelves come crashing down, much like the domino effect. Another funny bit is when she hears a strange noise in the museum: “Abdul? Mohammed? Bob?” There are many other funny moments like those; I won’t give away all of them. There is also a heavy amount of action that didn’t bore me, mainly because we have a likable hero in this series of battles with mummies, most of which are comical. Brendan Fraser plays Rick as a low-rent Indiana Jones and he has fun with the character and performance. Also fun to watch is Rachel Weisz as his could-be girlfriend—she projects a great deal of comedic timing.

The special effects work very well. That really does look like a decomposing mummy threatening to kill the main characters and conquer the world. But a flaw in “The Mummy” is that it seems like a half-hour too long. “Men in Black,” which also featured special effects and a comic undertone, featured the best it could with a half-hour too short of running time. But “The Mummy” maybe needed less of a good time. But even during tidbits of the final climax, such as when Jonathan is stumbling trying to help “save the day,” I wasn’t bored. To sum it up, I was entertained by “The Mummy,” even when the dumbness took over the thriller aspects. It’s a fun ride that I do not regret taking.