Archive | February, 2013

Still Life (Short Film) (2012)

17 Feb

195063459_295

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“You ever feel like this place is just sinkin’ into the ground? I do everything I can to try to hang on to the edge of this hole, waitin’ on somebody to reach down and pull me out. But everybody that’s pulled me out’s down here with me.” –Line of dialogue from Still Life

Still Life is a touching, effective drama about a man who feels like he’s hit rock bottom and has to rely on his community to get everything on track. The man’s name is Daniel (Lynnsee Provence). He’s a widower who has just lost his job and has trouble making ends meet for him and his six-year-old son named Jack (Luke Ferguson).

The film is pretty much just about a day in which Daniel seeks work, guidance, and help. It takes place in the Arkansas Delta, which, from someone who has grown up in Northeast Arkansas (namely me), is an environment that makes you feel surrounded/trapped by everything around you because there’s something empty and yet at the same time something peaceful presenting itself. That’s how Daniel and many of the people he’s acquainted with, whom we meet as the film progresses, feel. Some are used to it; others are too busy thinking about more for themselves and their families to feel anything but resentment. Still Life shows a great portrait of that. It’s also effective in how it shows its supporting characters—Daniel’s sister-in-law Bethany (Raeden Greer) who sometimes looks after Jack while also dealing with a rough relationship (there’s a revealing moment when Daniel asks her to leave and she snaps, saying there’s nowhere else to go); Daniel’s old buddy (Terence Rose) and his wife (Jahquis Bailey) who are there for him but aren’t the best people to talk about tragedy; even Daniel’s landlady (Fran Austin) looks like there’s something missing in her life, judging from her emotionless face as she smokes a cigarette and asks for Daniel’s rent.

The film is the graduate thesis film of Allison Hogue, writer and director of the film, for the University of Central Arkansas Digital Filmmaking Master of Fine Arts Program. Hogue made last year’s Hitchhiker, a well-executed fantasy-mystery short. With Still Life, it’s her chance to tell a story more based upon reality. Hogue is a gifted filmmaker who succeeds at showing everything she was obviously getting across, and in a subtle way, too—not just exposition explaining exactly how everything went wrong. We can piece things together with almost every scene as the film progresses. Some things are obvious, but most aren’t shoved in your face.

Still Life opens and ends with quotations from Mark Twain—one from “Tom Sawyer,” the other from “Huckleberry Finn.” The first quote sets the tone for the movie—particularly the main character’s feeling of emptiness. The second one appears after an ending that is just right for the film. It doesn’t simply show that everything gets resolved. It’s merely hinted at. It tells us that life goes on and there will always be a way to deal with it.

Still Life ran for almost twenty-nine minutes. Considering some of the short films I’ve seen at the Little Rock Film Festival, where this was shown, it’s saying something when I say at no point was I checking my phone for the time. That’s the sign of a film that has you invested from beginning to end…and a film about life, at that.

NOTE: The film can be seen here: https://vimeo.com/75462622

The Man in the Moon (Short Film) (2012)

17 Feb

277791154_640

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The Man in the Moon, made in association with the UCA Digital Filmmaking Program, had already caught my interest with its clever teaser trailer, featuring a strange, gray landscape with what looks like a golf cart making its way across, as the camera pans up to the sky … only to reveal the Earth. Yes, we are in outer space, the “golf cart” is a lunar rover, and this landscape is on the moon. It’s a great teaser, and the title suggests … well, take a guess.

This 20-minute short film is an imaginative, well-put-together science-fiction story that starts out as a futuristic prison fable and heads into different, even more interesting, territory once it unleashes that always-reliable moment in which a character digs for quite a time and then suddenly hears an unexpected THUD. (And of course, there’s another THUD to be sure of what he heard.)

The character is named Dave; he’s part of a new prison program that sends convicts into complete isolation up to the moon. As one of those convicts, he is completely alone on the moon … or so he thinks. When digging for experimental dirt or stones (there’s a machine in his prison that somehow brings it back to Earth for experimentation — I’m not quite sure how that works, but oh well), he digs a little deeper and then…you guessed it — THUD.

Dave (Lynnsee Provence) discovers a doorway leading to the underground lair of the Man in the Moon, which is actually somewhat welcoming—it looks like the inside of a suburban house…in the 1960s, which makes things kind of unnerving and unsure. But the Man in the Moon, named Manuel (Leonard Schlientz), is a kindly old man with a generous hospitality. He takes Dave in, making him feel at home, but there seems to be something more that Manuel has in mind. For example, what is inside that forbidden room right beside the back bedroom?

The more mysterious The Man in the Moon gets, the more intriguing it is. I apologize for giving away what Dave finds beneath the lunar surface, but I stopped immediately at the plot device of the “forbidden room.” There’s a lot of creativity flowing through the story and I was interested throughout, to the point where I didn’t care much for questions such as how does that machine in Dave’s prison work, and where does Manuel get all of his food if he’s been secretly living in the moon?

The film has a nice visual style. The moon setting is terrific. I hear the scenes taking place on the moon landscape were actually filmed on a quarry with color digitally added in post-production to give the illusion of moon rocks, space dust, and emptiness of outer space. The result is very effective. Also of note are the interiors—Dave’s prison and Manuel’s home. Each is different, but interesting. Dave’s home has a rustic-if-retro look, suitable for an isolated prison on the moon, and Manuel’s home looks as if it was stuck in a ‘60s time warp—the appropriate colors and props really stand out.

An interesting story idea, a continuing guessing feel, and good performances from both Provence and Schlientz makes for a pretty good film. How much did I appreciate The Man in the Moon? Of the twelve short films I saw the night it premiered at the 6th Annual Little Rock Film Festival, this is the one that I was most fond of when the night was over.

John Wayne’s Bed (Short Film)

17 Feb

stills_JohnWaynesBed

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The short drama John Wayne’s Bed, right at the beginning, is said to be “inspired by a true story.” And whenever I see that subtitle in a movie, I get cynical — that’s even how I felt before I watched “War Eagle, Arkansas.” It’s just the sudden feeling of manipulation and heavy handedness (movies like Amelia and — sue me — The Blind Side come to mind). But like War Eagle, John Wayne’s Bed treats its subject material, as well as its audience, with enough respect that it doesn’t have to succumb to heavy dramatic clichés just to make us care. It just effectively tells the story. The acting is great, the cinematography is nice, the dramatic elements are well-handled, and it’s over in just 20 minutes.

John Wayne’s Bed is writer-director Sarah Jones’ thesis film for the University of Central Arkansas Digital Filmmaking Master of Fine Arts Program, but according to Jones in the“Indiegogo” blog supporting the film, it means a lot more to her than receiving her Master’s degree. The story behind the film is based upon her father’s friend who was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease, and made the most of his final days with his love for life and the help of his friends. Jones stated, “Even before I started studying filmmaking, I knew that this was a film that I needed to make.”

The film stars Alan Rackley as Allen, an Arkansan man who loves to hunt and fish and doesn’t let his disease slow him down. His best friend (Bob Boaz) helps him and accompanies him on the outdoor activities, and his wife (Angela Woods) provides for him, though she states that it’s getting more difficult to handle because he’s unable to perform most daily activities. Allen knows he’ll never be independent and he’ll most likely die soon, but his stubbornness and optimism keeps him going.

Allen’s luck picks up when he is accepted into a hunting program for mobility-impaired people. Accompanied by his wife and friend, he lives the perfect hunting trip for him—he has a rifle that doesn’t require pulling the trigger (there’s a tube he can blow into that fires the weapon) and even gets to sleep in John Wayne’s bed.

The approach that Jones took to this story is wonderful. This story is told in a moving but never condescending way, and it flows smoothly as we get from this setup at Allen’s home to his “dream-come-true” at the cabin. The actors do great jobs in defining these characters. By the time this film is over, we have spent twenty minutes in the company of real people. John Wayne’s Bed is a wonderful film.

NOTE: The film can be seen here: https://vimeo.com/67408995

Hitchhiker (Short Film) (2011)

17 Feb

459142_294920593909216_2141328867_o

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

OK, we all know the story. An innocent person drives on an empty road in the middle of the night when along comes a hitchhiker, whom the innocent decides to take a chance on and give the stranger a ride. Only it turns out that this hitchhiker is quite different and may actually be a dangerous stalker. It’s an old campfire story that has also been included in many horror films, in which that element leads to certain doom.

But I don’t think there has been a hitchhiker story quite like this. In this ten-minute short film—aptly titled Hitchhiker — the innocent person may not be so innocent in the first place, the hitchhiker has something more on his mind that you’d like to know about, and there’s a neat, original twist revolving around redemption.

The film, written and directed by Allison Hogue, is set up in the middle of the night. A young woman (Courtney Howard) is out for a drive when she runs out of cigarettes. She comes around a man in a hooded sweatshirt on the side of the road, signaling for a ride. She stops, and asks the hitchhiker (J.D. Cariker) if he might have any cigarettes. He offers a pack for a ride into town. She agrees, and the two are in each other’s uncomfortable company. The hitchhiker asks her ominous questions, such as why she usually wouldn’t pick up a hitchhiker. After an awkward talk, you’d think this would be the moment when danger strikes. And at this point, I have to warn that SPOILER ALERTS are coming! SPOILER ALERTS are coming! Before reading the rest of this review, I ask that you check out Hitchhiker by Allison Hogue on Vimeo (or above) and come back. SPOILER ALERT!

The opening seems like standard stuff for this kind of story (although the soothing spiritual pop music manages to give a sense of ominousness). The reason I’m recommendingHitchhiker is the twist. The woman drops off the hitchhiker at his destination, only to find that that he is pursuing her. When he catches up with her at her house, she finds that a gun-wielding intruder (the late Keith Mulberry) has been waiting for him. It is then that the hitchhiker makes himself known as probably something not of this world, but possibly from the next world.

The characters are not how we expected. For example, the woman could be seen as the innocent that gives the hitchhiker a ride and finds herself in a bizarre situation she didn’t want to be in. But maybe she isn’t so innocent. When we first see her driving, we see someone who is either hiding something or trying to get over something she may have started in her life. Whatever it is has her somewhat bitter and cold. You can feel it in the scene in which she at first refuses to give a ride—she’d rather stop and ask a hitchhiker for cigarettes than give him a ride. That’s really low, if you ask me. Then, there’s the ending, in which she is redeemed and given a second chance. We’re not entirely sure of exactly what it was that she began with before this night—things are left somewhat vague. And also, who is that intruder? Is he a burglar in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or did he have connections to the woman? There’s a lot you can read into this.

Then, there’s the hitchhiker. At first, he seems like he can’t be trusted, but that’s because he’s asking the questions that would put you on edge. The reality is that he’s testing you when he asks those questions. Then, when he chases the woman home and saves her from the intruder, he gives her a Bible and a message saying that she deserves a second chance. And then he leaves, to find someone else to deliver the message to. The hitchhiker is not a madman. He has the motivations of a savior.

Hitchhiker begins as a typical horror film and turns into something more of a spiritual tale than anything else. It’s an effective short film that plays with the seen-before hitchhiker story element, and leaves with something special that you didn’t expect.

Watch the film here: https://vimeo.com/31127434

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

17 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When there is a list of most popular film franchises in the history of cinema, I believe there will be a spot for the “Harry Potter” films, based on the book series by J.K. Rowling. The first film, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was a triumph—I even called it a “classic.” And though I give the sequel—the film based on the second book of the series—the same star-rating as I gave its predecessor (four stars), I have to say that this film—entitled “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”—is even better than the first. The first film had a great deal of imagination in its visuals and in its storytelling and this second film has an even greater deal if you can believe it. It is, however, rather dark, just as “The Empire Strikes Back” was darker than “Star Wars.” Like the first film, “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is rated PG and has a great deal of terror in many sequences. About the first film, I wrote in my review that it’s scary but not too scary. However, some moments in this film should have qualified the film for a PG-13 rating—those said moments might give some children nightmares, but delight others.

We’ve already gotten to know the characters in the first film and now we care even more about what they go through here. We again meet young Harry Potter, a year older with a deeper voice and on the brink of adolescence, as you can tell. Then, we again meet his friends Ron and Hermione. They haven’t seen each other in a while—and neither have we, for that matter. Their personalities remain the same, with a few touches put into them. One of the great things about this movie is watching these characters grow in this sequel. And then we again meet those wonderful teachers at Hogwarts School—headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris, in his last role), gentle giant and gamekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), always-mysterious Snape (Alan Rickman), and professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith). But there are new characters brought into this sequel—there is a teacher who explains of mandrakes (played by Miriam Margoyles), bully Draco Malfoy’s (Tom Felton) even-slimier father (Jason Issacs), and a celebrity wizard named Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh) whose incredible resume (he wrote an autobiography called “Magical Me” as well a few other books about himself) brings him to Hogwarts to teach the class of defense against the dark arts. He’s more worried about feisty blue pixies messing up his self-portrait.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is better-treated by his Muggle relatives (if you recall, “Muggle” is the term for humans), but that’s not saying much. He has his own room, as long he stays inside while the relatives throw a party. While he is in his room to keep from interrupting a similar party downstairs, he is visited by a house elf named Dobby—a special-effects creature that punishes himself by beating himself up—who warns Harry not to return to Hogwarts, lest he put himself in danger. It turns out that there is danger. The mysterious Chamber of Secrets, said to be the home of a monster, has been opened and many students (as well as a cat and a ghost) have been petrified by the sight of the monster. There are many questions to be answered and Harry, Ron, and Hermione are the ones who stand alone to find out what is really happening. They band together to find clues and answers to all of the questions that need them. Eventually, Harry finds a diary by a Tom Marvolo Riddle that provides clues in ghostly handwriting and allows Harry to travel back 50 years into the past to find some answers. The kids also encounter a swarm of giant spiders, change into Draco Malfoy’s friends to question Malfoy, and more.

This film is more than well-made with Chris Columbus’ direction—it’s alive. It’s about something. The computer animation is no distraction at all because it makes the movie as visually interesting as the cast and the sets. They blend in very convincingly. Even the Quidditch game is put on a larger scale than in the first film and that’s a great accomplishment—it’s also even more exciting because Harry has to outrun a runaway ball called a Bludger while also trying to catch the Golden Snitch and win the game.

I love how all of the plot elements draw together and how everything is cleared in the end. This film also doesn’t set up for the next Harry Potter adventure. It doesn’t have to. If these two films were the only films in the Harry Potter film series, it wouldn’t make much of a difference. “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was the setup and “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is the payoff. The characters we’ve grown to love are brought into intriguing action sequences, brilliant sets, and a powerful action climax in the third half of the film. There is more than action to be found here—there is a heart and most importantly, a brain. “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is a highly satisfactory sequel.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

17 Feb

Batman Mask of the Phantasm phantasm

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Batman: Mask of the Phantasm” was the only theatrical release based on the animated series of “Batman” (entitled “Batman: The Animated Series”). The series was dark and complex, which is what also could be said about this movie. It’s strange and very intriguing in the way that this movie (and the series) was able to strike the right notes for kids and adults. But “Batman: Mask of the Phantasm” is a gripping thriller that both would enjoy.

Actually, I just realized what is special about both this movie and the series—it treated the kids like adults!

“Batman: Mask of the Phantasm” digs deeper into Bruce Wayne’s past, as we discover that he almost had a normal life before becoming the Dark Knight himself. This is brought back to him by the arrival of an old flame, Andrea Beaumont, with whom he restarts a romance. At the same time, there’s a new villain in town—a mysterious vigilante who is killing off Gotham City’s crime bosses. This villain, who can appear and disappear with a puff of smoke, is called the Phantasm and is also mistaken for Batman. So while trying to deal with his life as Bruce Wayne, Batman is also on the run and out to clear his name.

The animated series was mostly known for its Gothic stories and character development, as hard choices and haunting memories come into place. Such is the case here. The flashback sequence in which we see events that lead to Bruce Wayne becoming Batman is very well-handled and quite complicated. It shows the fantasies of what might or should be, and then reality takes its toll in a harsh way that leads to tough decisions that ultimately must be made.

The new villain, the Phantasm, is a welcome addition. With a dark cloak, glowing eyes, a mask that also alters voice, and a lot of smoke to fool during encounters, the Phantasm is one tough customer. As the story progresses, there is more to be told about the Phantasm’s story, and during the film’s harrowing final act, that story comes full-circle in a way I wouldn’t dare give away. The Phantasm isn’t the only villain, however. We’re also fortunate enough to have the Joker, slimy as ever. And the scheme that these villains follow through with is surprisingly well-put into detail. Maybe I wasn’t too enthralled by evil schemes in some of the live-action Batman movies, but this one was quite intriguing.

The climactic final act is phenomenal. It’s not just because of the crafty animation style that makes it worth watching; it’s everything that has been set up before, and is now paying off. I love action-thrillers in which the climax really means something after all that’s happened before.

It’s a shame that this animated Batman movie was a box-office bomb. (Reportedly, this had to do with Warner Bros.’ inept marketing campaign.) It has since gained a cult following on home media release, and for good reason. It’s a pretty strong film. Even Siskel & Ebert, in 1995 (the year “Batman Forever” was released), admitted that they regretted missing this film in the theater, saying they enjoyed it more that “the current Batman adventure.” Much like the animated series this was based on, “Batman: Mask of the Phantasm” is intelligent, spectacularly-drawn, and quite dark and intricate.

Children of the Corn (1984)

17 Feb

images-2

Smith’s Verdict: *

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Children of the Corn” is a movie in serious need of punishment. This is a sick, depraved movie that isn’t enjoyable unless you like to see children under the age of 19 butcher adults and attempt to sacrifice a woman to their deity He Who Walks Behind The Rows, shouting “Kill! Kill! Kill!” Why is their deity called that, anyway? He doesn’t walk behind the rows, he tunnels underneath them.

These little monsters are led by the sadistic young preacher named Isaac (John Franklin), who brings the children of small town Gatlin, Nebraska into the clearing of the corn fields to preach about He Who Walks Behind The Rows. He orders the children to follow his orders and kill all of the adults in town. His main executioner is another sadistic little snot named Malachi (Courtney Gains), who always has his hunting knife handy for slitting throats of children who rebel against Isaac.

Where did Isaac come from? How did he get to be this way? We don’t know. All we know is that we would love to kill this kid, along with Malachi with his own hunting knife. The rest of the kids are practically just their robots, agreeing with them in deadpan.

The narrator of the movie is a boy named Job (Robby Kiger)—he explains in narration that the town has been adult-free for three years. He, his older brother Joseph, and his psychic sister Sarah (she can draw what is going to happen) are nonbelievers, but they keep it a secret from the other children. Joseph plans to run away from Gatlin through the cornfield. He doesn’t make it—he gets his throat cut by Malachi and is thrown out into the road, where his body is hit by a traveling young couple (Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton). The couple is traveling to Seattle and is passing through Gatlin to report the body but they don’t know what they’re in for.

The only thing that looks good in “Children of the Corn” are the shots of the cornfield (someone running through them looks like someone stumbling through a maze) and the music score, which is quite eerie and belongs in a different, more acceptable horror movie. The character are uninteresting—the young couple is bland and stupid and the kids are annoying and sadistic—and the movie is not well-made by most means. There are cheap shots through almost 85% of the movie. Also, there’s a character of a grizzled gas station manager played by R.G Armstrong that doesn’t work at all.

The climax of the film in which He Who Walks Behind The Rows must be stopped is tacky with an unfinished and unsatisfying feeling.

Then there’s the narration by the kid named Job. For the first half-hour, we hear his narration and then the filmmakers just forget to finish it up or pay it off. There is no ending narration—instead, there is a credit that seems to come out of nowhere rather than end the movie.

“Children of the Corn” is loosely based on Stephen King’s short story in his collection of short stories called “Night Shift.” I don’t know what he was thinking of when he wrote the story to begin with. This premise could never work. It certainly doesn’t work here. However, to be fair about the story, it has more cleverly-written dialogue than any of the lines in this movie.

The Shining (1980)

17 Feb

images-1

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Who can be truly trusted in Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Stephen King’s novel “The Shining?” There are three central characters taking up the screen most of the time and they all seem to be going crazy, even though two of them end up running from another one who is wielding an axe. Those two aren’t exploited as possibly losing their sanities but when the movie is over, you really have to think about it. Did we see what we really saw? Did we hear what we really heard? Did we rely on the right central character?

“The Shining” could be considered a ghost story. It features a creepy hotel that appears to be haunted. We get glimpses of ghostly twin sisters and a whole party in the hotel bar that was supposed to be closed for the winter. I wouldn’t call it a ghost story because of what is never quite explained. But there are many elements of a ghost story within “The Shining,” and a lot more to it than that so that I wouldn’t call it a ghost story. What it is, however, is downright frightening.

Who else but Stanley Kubrick would want to make this movie? He always wants to take chances and with “The Shining,” he takes the chance of changing King’s original novel into a story with no reliable narrator and that really makes wonder. But his biggest strength is his direction, which is great here. We get long hallways inside this hotel, long panning shots in which the camera follows one character from one room to another seemingly from the wall rather than behind the character, nicely done steadycam shots (the best of which features a little boy named Danny riding a tricycle through a long hallway—that scene alone is creepy, especially when he goes around corners because we think he might see something disturbing around that particular corner or the next one, and also when the wheels make a rumbling sound on the hardwood floor but is muffled when riding on a carpet), and a great sense of isolation. This is a hotel high up in the mountains. It is closed for the winter. Novelist Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) is hired as the caretaker while it is closed. He brings along his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and five-year-old son Danny (Danny Lloyd).

The first scene of “The Shining,” in which Jack is interviewed, recalls some great formality in the dialogue. Jack and his employer make some small talk but then unexpectedly, the employer tells Jack about the original caretaker of the same hotel—he went insane with cabin fever and chopped his family into little pieces. Jack takes this rather well, “That’s not going to happen to me.”

We then learn that Jack is a recovering alcoholic and seems like a nice enough person to his wife and son. Wendy is rather meek and follows her husband wherever. Danny, on the other hand, is a special case. He has an imaginary friend named Tony, who is described by Danny as “the little boy who lives in my mouth.” Is Tony real? Well, even when Danny is alone, he uses his finger for Tony to talk. And Tony shows Danny visions of what could happen at the hotel. These visions are terrifying, one of which features what appears to be blood filling up an entire hallway. The most disturbing is a shot of two men huddled together near the end of a bed (one of which is wearing a bear suit—huh???) Later on, those visions prove accurate…

There is another person that shares Danny’s gift called “shining.” This character is probably the only trustworthy character in the movie—the hotel’s original cook Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers). He is away from the hotel but there are small scenes in which he grows concerned about the family being all alone in that hotel.

He has reason to be concerned. Things go wrong as the family spends months at the hotel. Jack starts to get grumpy and Danny is seeing terrifying visions of ghosts and past events. Wendy is just trying to adjust and keep the family together but when she notices Jack’s odd behavior, she can’t help but be concerned. What can she do to help? Later through the movie, Jack’s grumpiness turns to insanity as he talks to ghosts in the hotel bar. The cabin fever has certainly gotten the better of him. Much later, it becomes clear that Wendy and Danny’s lives are in jeopardy, beginning in the movie’s most shocking revelation in which Wendy discovers how long Jack has been going crazy—by finding out what he’s written, as a novelist, in the past few months they’ve been at the hotel (I will not give it away). But when you think about what these characters are seeing, you start to wonder if Wendy and Danny are going crazy as well. If that’s the case, who can we rely on in this story? There’s a revealing twist at the end that I would dare to give away but it really made me question the entire movie, which is very frightening.

Jack Nicholson is one of the best actors…period. He is phenomenal as Jack, calm with his assuring voice, grumpy when possible, and absolutely crazy and powerful in the second half of the movie. Shelley Duvall is doing what she is supposed to be doing—sane in the first half, hysteric in the second. I believed her when she was scared practically to death.

I believe I should also mention the long hedge maze near the hotel. The way Kubrick directs characters walking through this giant maze is fantastic, really giving us fear and a sense of entrapment.

“The Shining” needs to be watched and then interpreted. Take every plot element piece by piece and try to come up with your own analysis. I can’t say I “enjoyed” “The Shining.” But I definitely can’t forget it either.

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)

16 Feb

1330547600963_panslabyrinth2_2x1_Overlay_640_320

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Guillermo del Toro’s “Pan’s Labyrinth” is a fairy-tale fantasy that does two things different with the fairy-tale element in its story. 1) It blends it with reality in a way that what goes on with the protagonist in the real world is somewhat related to the fantasy world. 2) It gives, without exaggeration, the darkest fantasy ever depicted on film (and yes, I’ve seen “Heavenly Creatures”). This movie deserves its hard R rating—it is not for children, by any means. Don’t be fooled by the poster that shows a plucky little girl venturing into the fantasy world—this movie is hard on all levels. It is also one of the best fantasies in the history of cinema—touching, thrilling, well-executed, powerfully-acted, and dark. Very dark.

This movie was made in Spain, and Spanish is the language heard throughout. Yes, this is a foreign film and it shouldn’t be a problem unless you can’t read the English subtitles.

The setting is Spain, 1944. A young girl named Ofelia (Ivana Banquero, in her acting debut) travels with her pregnant mother, whose pregnancy is killing her, to a house in the forest. There, she meets her stepfather-to-be, Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez), a vile man who runs an old mill and commands a fascist outpost.

Near the house is a stone labyrinth that is easy to get lost into. But it turns out this labyrinth is enchanted and visited by fairies and a faun (presumably the “Pan” in the title, but no one refers to him by name). The faun believes that Ofelia is a lost princess from his world of enchantment and tests her skills by giving her three tasks. If she succeeds for all three, she gets invited to stay in the fantasy world, free from the trouble that is life and away from her the cruel Captain Vidal. One of her tasks involves a run-in with a scary pale man with pale and decomposing skin all over his body (oh, and he has eyeballs in the palms of both his hands). He chases her because she breaks the rules of the task—that’s an easy life lesson for kids who do wind up seeing this movie.

In the way that these fantasy sequences are intertwined with the reality of the story with Ofelia’s mother and cruel stepfather, there are many times in which we can hardly tell if what she’s only dreaming these strange events in this bizarre world. This is very effective because in some ways, the creatures she encounters are even more frightening than Captain Vidal and we do fear for her life. This is not handled predictably. In the meantime, we get plenty of scenes involving Captain Vidal and his men looking for the enemy in the woods and a subplot involving Ofelia’s secret that she knows the maid Mercedes (a great performance by Maribel Verdu) is assisting their enemies as well. It’s interesting how fantasy and reality are both involved in this movie.

Director Guillermo del Toro reportedly did not want Hollywood to help him with this movie. I bet if they did, most of the shots that make many scenes even more powerful would have been omitted or not even filmed in the first place. They also would’ve asked for the story to be toned down to a PG rating. (At least, that’s what I think.) There are a lot of great visual shots in this movie—one shot in particular doesn’t even take place inside the labyrinth, but inside Ofelia’s mother’s womb, where we see the fetus of the unborn baby. This shot is unsettling, but very inventive and haunting. Also, the visual style here is amazing—especially in the adventures Ofelia has in the fantasy world—and the makeup, for the faun and the pale man, is ultimately effective and impressive. This faun, played by Doug Jones (not a Spanish actor, by the way), is probably going to give children nightmares based on his look, as well as his speech. This creature is really creepy. But the sight of the pale man with eyeballs in his hands may do even worse effect. This movie is not intended for kids, by any means.

Oh, and I should also mention the mandrake root that Ofelia hides under her sick mother’s bed. It becomes what is probably more creepy-looking than the faun or the pale man. It looks like a half-baby made from elements of the earth.

“Pan’s Labyrinth” is visually stunning—every creature looks about as real as you could get and we fear them; they are nightmare fodders for sure—and the direction by Del Toro is amazing. There is one shot in which we follow a strange insect (a mantis-type creature) as it flies all around the forest until it finds its way to our heroine for the first time. But what really makes “Pan’s Labyrinth” an extraordinary fantasy, as well as its look, is the grimness and great power of the storyline. Let me remind parents—it is R-rated. If you want your children to watch the “Wizard of Oz” of the 21st century, this is not it (there are many “Harry Potter” movies for that, maybe). But adults (and maybe teenagers) are going to find the movie powerful, scary, fantastic, and, once again, very grim.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)

16 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When filmmakers adapt novels to films, there is that danger of being too far from the spirit of the source material. And then, there is also the “danger” (I use quotations because I don’t believe in it personally) of being too faithful to the source material. In any case, they try to please the half of the film’s audience who has read the novel the film was based on already. But I don’t know if I can find anyone who wouldn’t like “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” based on the first novel (though in some countries, it’s known as “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”) in a best-selling book series by British author J.K. Rowling. The “Harry Potter” book series gives great depth, emotion, magic, and intensely vivid imagination to readers young and old. This film adaptation of the first book is most likely to be liked by anyone who enjoys great fantasy/adventure films and those who have read the book before seeing the movie in the first place.

In my opinion, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is a classic—one of the best fantasy films I’ve ever seen, with no doubt in my mind. It is magical and enchanting, but it is also dark, gruesome, and with some creepy atmosphere. This film is rated PG and it, as well as the books, are more targeted at children and young adults than adults (who enjoy the books just as well as they). There are scenes of menace and fright assisted by special effects—there is a three-headed dog, a dark wizard feasting on a dead unicorn, a back story involving the young hero’s parents’ deaths, and a pit of tendrils called the Devil’s Snare. They are scary, but not too scary. Besides, if some of the special effects creatures don’t frighten the younger kids, they will instead delight them because they’re having fun. And there is more fun to be had with the whole idea of terrific, colorful characters in a world of supernatural adventure and terror.

Daniel Radcliffe plays the titular, bespectacled 11-year-old Harry Potter and I highly doubt anyone would dislike his casting—he looks exactly right for the part, but most importantly, he feels right. He’s a likable hero—brave, honest, and true. Left on the doorstep of his hateful aunt and uncle as a baby, he has been raised as more of a charity. His young life seems empty until he receives many strange letters and a visit from a gentle giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane). Harry has been accepted to a boarding school for young wizards and witches who learn to develop their magical powers.

And what a place it is—Hogwarts, as the school is called, was created with a set and by computers. With the right sort of technology, anything can seem real. Hogwarts is no exception. It looks as real as anything. Harry is bewildered by this school, and we are too. The staircases move, the paintings come alive as people pass by, there are friendly ghosts lounging about in the common room, ceilings that change whatever the mood, and then there are the classes in which the kids learn to use their magic using wands. They make things float, they learn to fly on broomsticks, and more.

Harry makes two friends at his new home—enthusiastic Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and bookish Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). He meets many colorful, eccentric teachers—one is the mysterious, glaring potions teacher Snape (Alan Rickman, excellent casting), another is Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) who can shape-shift into a cat, and then there’s the bearded headmaster Dumbledore (Richard Harris).

But there is a story to be told here—Harry, Ron, and Hermione stumble upon a secret within the school. While getting through their classes, as well as a rough game of Quidditch (more on that in a bit), they move into further adventure and danger in the meantime. They encounter a three-headed dog named Fluffy who seems to be guarding something under a trapdoor. They battle a giant troll that seems to be have been brought in by a teacher, whom they suspect is attempting to steal what is hidden in that trapdoor. They fall into that pit of tendrils called the Devil’s Snare. They play a life-size game of Wizard Chess, in which gigantic chess pieces come alive and shatter their opponents. And so on. Computers make these sequences look plausible, and they do a great job, as well as the actors who make us root for them during each of these sequences. These scenes have atmosphere, gravity, and (dare I say) credibility.

Fans of the book who saw the movie were most likely thrilled by the exciting game of Quidditch, a sporting event played midway through the film in which two teams (each member on a broomstick) chase after multiple balls to get through their opponents’ hoops. Harry is good with a broomstick for a wizard his age, so he is made the seeker, which means he has to catch a small, fast, golden ball with wings—this is called the Golden Snitch. This game would be near impossible to film, but even then, the filmmakers take their chances and create an excellent sequence in which everyone is flying, struggling, and going for the win. It looks more or less like I imagined it, anyway.

The director Chris Columbus (best known for his directorial work in “Home Alone” and “Mrs. Doubtfire,” as well as writing the menacing and also PG-rated “Gremlins” and “The Goonies”) has directed a classic in the fantasy genre. The actors—the three young unknowns and the high-profile adult British actors—are first-rate in their performances, hitting just the right notes for this movie. The action is exciting, the set pieces are outstanding, there are many scenes that bring true magic to viewers, and the very best thing about the whole movie is that it doesn’t just set up for the sequel—it could work as a stand-alone film. But we all know that the sequels are worth seeing and that this series of books is a possible successful fantasy/adventure film franchise.

“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’s” running time is 152 minutes—there was not a single moment when I was checking for the time. I was entertained, moved, or enchanted by just about every scene in this film.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →