Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Eddie and the Cruisers” is a movie about members of a rock band from almost 20 years ago who look back on how they got together, how they became famous, and what led to their end. They were called Eddie and the Cruisers—not a real band (a fictional one), but they seem like one in this movie. They reached their end when the band’s frontman Eddie Wilson disappeared—his car was found in a lake, but his body was never recovered. Some believe he is dead and others believe he is still alive. But if he’s dead, then what happened to the missing songs that were recorded by him? Surely, none of the other band members took them. A reporter (Ellen Barkin) is attempting to create the biggest story of her career by finding out what happened to those missing tapes. So she visits the band’s keyboardist and songwriter Frank (Tom Berenger), who is now a high school teacher.

We get many flashbacks in between the scenes in which Frank meets up again with other former Cruisers. We see how Frank wound up into the band—he suggests some poems for lyrics which were unappreciated at first but accepted eventually, being affectionately dubbed “the wordman.” He himself is unappreciated, as he realizes when Eddie (Michael Pare) shouts out every band member—including bassist Sal Amato (Matthew Laurence), band manager Doc (Joe Pantoliano), and Eddie’s beautiful girlfriend Joann Carlino (Helen Schneider)—except him. But soon, Eddie reconciles with Frank, saying they “need each other.”

It’s fun to see the Cruisers look back on the good old days after all these years. Doc is a DJ who is trying so hard to get the band known again but he’s in over his head. Sal is still in the music business, with a new lineup of Cruisers. Joann also can’t let go of the past and when she meets Frank, she tells him that Eddie is still alive but not showing himself—he’s performing signals he taught her years ago. But is Eddie still alive? And did he take those tapes? Everything builds up to an ending that is probably not an ending you would expect. Not many viewers will even accept it, but I bought it, at least.

Michael Pare is convincing as a rock star performing onstage, Tom Berenger is effective in the lead role as the “wordman” and the soundtrack is terrific. Also, the drama works in “Eddie and the Cruisers,” especially in the scene in which Eddie is thinking about ending it all because the band is not great. He questions the point of having a band if they’re not great. That scene really moved me in such a way that maybe I didn’t need a better ending, but I can make do with what I have right in front of me. “Eddie and the Cruisers” is a good movie—well-acted with a great soundtrack and a sense of biography. I feel like I knew Eddie and the Cruisers right when the movie ended.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The 1980s have had a thing for taking those silly B-movies from the 1950s and reconstructing them as slick thrillers with a lot of ambition and some pretty nifty special effects—examples include “American Werewolf in London,” “The Thing,” “The Fly,” and “The Lost Boys.” “The Blob,” a remake of the 1958 B-movie of the same name, is one of those movies—it takes the premise of its predecessor and upgrades the effects as well as add a good deal of dark comedy. But mainly though, it is merely through-and-through a monster movie.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. In fact, I kind of liked this version of “The Blob” for the same reasons I enjoyed “The Thing.” There aren’t any complex characters like in “The Fly” or a unique visual style like in “The Lost Boys”—it’s all just “icky” creature effects, good ol’ suspense, and occasional comedic relief. As a monster movie, “The Blob” is sick and yet fun at the same time.

The original 1950s film starred Steve McQueen in one of his first screen roles as a good kid who discovers that a gelatinous mass is eating its way through a small town and increasing in size as it continues to eat people. In this newer version, Kevin Dillon stars as a tough kid who may as well have escaped from the 1950s. He’s a greaser sporting a leather jacket, an odd-looking mullet, a motorcycle, and a criminal record.

A meteorite crashes down from outer space, as an old man explores the crater to check it out. He pokes at a jello-like substance, which then attaches itself to his hand and doesn’t let go. Brian and two other teenagers—the football star and the cheerleader—comes across the old man, trying to cut off his own hand with a carving knife. They take him to a hospital, but it’s then that they discover that this “blob” attaches itself to a person, eats him or her, and gets bigger as a result. And it’s headed toward town.

This is a cheerfully weird premise and I liked going along with it, especially with the discovery that it has no limits of space—for example, I loved the scene in which it sucks a diner worker through a sink (yes, a sink). Its only weakness is cold, but once it gets big enough to devour main street, I don’t think a fire extinguisher is going to help much. The result, I wouldn’t dare give away, but I can tell you this—it’s not how the original film ended; it’s more entertaining than that.

Looking back on the film, I realize that this movie isn’t on the same strength as the other movies I’ve mentioned in the first paragraph. It is indeed a monster movie with updated effects. The plot developments are as silly as in the original film and the characters aren’t three-dimensional in the slightest. And it should be noted that this is not an actors’ movie. Neither of the actors in “The Blob” are necessarily required to act, but they are an appealing bunch—including Kevin Dillon, Shawnee Smith, and Donavan Leitch as the film’s young heroes. The blob itself does look pretty good, as disgusting as it is. It’s gross, but it’s suitably gross. And the script does have a sense of humor—there are some very funny moments in the movie. One in particular is the reveal of Smith’s father, who works at the general store where Leitch went to buy condoms (he’s taking Smith on a date). Another is when Leitch’s wise-guy friend goes further than second-base with his date, and finds himself in for a surprise when he unbuttons her blouse. (Not to give anything away, but…he’s dead.)

Where the movie steers wrong is with the forced plot element that the Government was responsible for the Blob all along, the ruthlessness of the superior trying to keep it contained (to kill the heroes if necessary), and an ending that just doesn’t work at all. These elements make this “Blob” less than impressive. What I liked about the film is the premise, the effects, the actors with game, and the notion that anything goes with this particular creature. It’s a fun, sick monster movie.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Suspend your disbelief. Sit back and relax…and then next thing you know, you’re on the edge of your seat in the middle of intense action! That is the best way to enjoy “Red Dawn”—at least, that’s how it was for me. Yes, it’s true—I rather enjoyed this modern retelling of the popular 1984 war film (also called “Red Dawn”), while most critics found it to be disposable entertainment. But here’s the obvious wrong element to that phrase—it’s still entertainment in my eyes. With nicely orchestrated action sequences, and a go-for-it style and tone, I found “Red Dawn” to be a suitably energetic action flick.

For those who don’t recall the original 1984 film, it was about a group of high school teenagers who transform into soldiers when their hometown is in the hands of a foreign army. The idea of young people being able to perform great heroic deeds to defend their home and freedom is still a very intriguing idea, and I’m always interested in checking out what the newest movie of such elements has to offer. Earlier this year, I enjoyed the Australian teenage action/adventure “Tomorrow, When the War Began.” Now about eight months later comes “Red Dawn,” the modern remake of the 1984 film of the same name. And I’ll state right now—I understand the film’s flaws. I get it, OK? The war element is defined in an improbable way. The characters aren’t developed enough. The shaky-cam gimmick that they use gets old, as it usually does. The pacing is a bit rushed. The ending feels more like the end of a first-entry in a franchise (which there probably won’t be).

I get it. I don’t care. I know that’s weird of me to say, but…I don’t care. I was entertained. The action was very intense and it kept me interested in what was going to happen. The teenage characters, while not really developed enough, are still likable enough for us to root for them, and they’re played by appealing young actors. The first sights of jets and paratroopers arriving, as seen looking from a suburban front lawn, are chilling and visceral. And I even bought some of the dramatic moments as well.

Instead of the Russians occupying the hometown of our young heroes, and with connections to other parts of America, it’s North Korea that has become our invaders. (Although, it’s said that Russians have helped—and by the way, don’t ask. You shouldn’t care.) They land in Spokane, Washington the morning after a hard-fought high-school football game. The “Wolverines” star player—Matt Eckert (Josh Peck)—has just cost the game, and goes home in misery, while the next morning, he and his visiting older Marine brother Jed (Chris Hemsworth) are awakened by the thud of bombs. They look outside, see the chaos appearing from the sky as enemy troops attack, and get the hell out of dodge, along with a few friends—including Robert (Josh Hutcherson); Daryl (Connor Cruise); Toni (Adrianne Palicki); Danny (Edwin Hodge); Julie (Alyssa Diaz); and Greg (Julian Alcaraz).

The setup is probably the best part of the movie. Introducing these kids as regular teenagers before putting them in this heavy situation was a smart move—in this way, it plays like the regularity of “Friday Night Lights,” with a neatly-cinematographed football game sequence, as well a brief scene involving small-town mingling, that suddenly gets interrupted by a Roland Emmerich/Michael Bay type of invasion. The sequence in which the attack arrives, recalling 9/11 moments, is very well-done and makes for a very forceful action scene in which Jed, Matt, and friends desperately race to escape town before it gets even worse. But did they really have to shake the camera so much?

So with the town in control of the communistic invaders, and most of their parents already killed (and Daryl’s father is the mayor who has no choice but to help the interlopers), Jed takes charge of the small group and ultimately decides to fight. Thankfully, he has military training and so he trains the younger ones to become soldiers as they plan their moves as a guerilla hit-and-run defense force. They use their name—the Wolverines—as a term of rebellion.

Where’s the US Army, you may ask? Well, they help in the background, and the Wolverines do come across a small group of American fighters, led by Lt. Tanner (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who can’t believe that a group of small-town teenagers could possibly be the great line of defense they’ve been hearing about. (Hey, it could happen. And who knows—maybe other football team members have decided to rebel as well.)

I mentioned that the pacing of “Red Dawn” was somewhat rushed. I could have used more scenes in which Jed trains these inexperienced kids how to fight, instead of a quick montage, and I also am a bit confused as to whether or not this is a national invasion or a local invasion. I think they explained it, but it was somewhat brief and I wasn’t sure what was happening to the rest of the United States. There’s the supposed evolving of young Robert as he makes his first kill and then has a supposed “change”—we never see enough of that, nor do we know what he’s going through. The storyline is not easy to figure out once the Wolverines have made themselves known, and that’s what made it more fun, as they race about in one combat sequence after another, and finally planning what they hope to be a final blow (which we all know it is not) as they sneak through the local police station that the enemy has taken as their headquarters.

We still have moments among the characters—not much, but they’ll do. Most of which involve Jed and Matt’s sibling rivalry, as Matt is a class-A screwup trying things his way and unwittingly putting the rest of the team in danger (most of which, from earlier, are attempts to rescue his captured girlfriend Erica, played by Isabel Lucas). Then there’s a very brief subplot in which Toni develops a crush on Jed, and wouldn’t you know it—just before they’re about to get intimate, there’s an explosion in the distance.

Chris Hemsworth plays the strong, effective leader type as well as Patrick Swayze did in the original film 28 years ago. Adrianna Palicki could have had more to do, but she makes the most of her underwritten role. The constantly-working young actor Josh Hutcherson is fine, while newcomer Connor Cruise is adequate at best. Josh Peck’s mumbling sort of got annoying, as did his character’s ego, but the performance kind of grew on me after a while.

I guess I’ll also say this about this “Red Dawn” remake (although I get the feeling I’m never going to live down this positive review)—it’s consistently entertaining. It knows it’s a movie and never tries to become reality, unlike the original film which tried too hard to play at both the violent angles and the dramatic elements to the point where it sort of put itself in the “strong first half/lackluster second half” category. Here, “Red Dawn” is a popcorn movie through and through. It’s fun, it’s exciting, it’s intense—just don’t expect too much in the sense of logic and you won’t be disappointed.

NOTE: Years later, I took back this positive review. Read the Revised Review here.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

First, I’ll state that I liked the original 1985 horror-comedy film “Fright Night” as a clever mix of horror and comedy. It wasn’t a masterpiece in the horror genre, but it was still kind of fun. But more importantly, I think this 2011 remake is just as good. Hey, seeing as how good vampire movies come in short supply nowadays, that’s good enough in my book…or review.

The main protagonist is a teenager named Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin, “Star Trek” and “Terminator Salvation”). He used to be a high school nerd until he started dating the hottest girl in school—Amy (Imogen Poots, “28 Weeks Later”)—and avoided his nerdy ex-best friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse—yes, McLovin from “Superbad”). Now he’s a jerk who ignores Ed’s cries for help.

Why does Ed want Charley’s help in the first place? Well, he believes that Charley’s new next-door neighbor in their suburban neighborhood—a smooth-talking brooder named Jerry—is a vampire. He also believes that he has killed many people in town, including their friend (whom we saw get murdered in an unnecessary opening scene).

“That is a terrible vampire name,” Charley scoffs in disbelief. “Jerry?”

But it turns out that Ed’s right. Jerry really is a vampire, as Charley discovers a little later. Jerry knows that Charley knows his secret and begins stalking him before setting out to slaughter him, his girlfriend, and his mother (Toni Collette). Charley sets out to protect them (and himself) from the all-powerful Jerry. But he needs help, so he turns to a British illusionist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant, channeling Mindfreak) for help. He knows a lot about vampires, you see. The only problem is, he doesn’t believe they’re real. What he does believe in are his booze, his tricks, and his sex life. But who knows? Things could happen that could bring him in the middle of this madness.

Colin Farrell plays Jerry, and it’s a good, tough performance. He is menacing as an invincible fanged man, but seems normal as a man who is merely mysterious. He lives in a suburban house outside of Las Vegas—his windows are blacked out, but there’s no use in questioning why since most people who live near Vegas work nights and therefore sleep during the day. He seems cool and smooth to those who give a friendly “hello” (including Charley’s mother). But when he thinks that people know about his secret, he scares them until he knows for sure that they know (at least, that’s what I believe), and then if he believes they’ll become smart enough to fight him, he goes after them. That’s what happens with him and Charley. Jerry seems cool towards Charley, yet when Charley discovers that Ed may be right about him, Jerry seems to know that Charley may be a little suspicious and plays with his mind a little bit. It’s a chilling scene that sets up everything else involving Charley pushing himself (and those around him) deeper into trouble.

“Fright Night” has to be noted for its antagonist as an interesting vampire. As Ed puts it, “He’s not brooding or love-sick. He’s the shark from ‘Jaws.’ He’ll kill anyone who gets in his way.” That’s true, and it’s not cheated at. Chris Sarandon may have been a little more subtle in hiding his secret as the vampire in the original 1985 film, but Colin Farrell seems more threatening and menacing when it comes to showing himself as a vampire. But while Farrell has a menacing presence, he also has fun with the role by playing it with a dry sense of humor. It’s as if he’s messing with his prey and having a good time because he knows he’ll get it soon enough.

Now, I think I know what you’re thinking and yes, “Fright Night” does get back to the traditional vampire mythological traits—wooden stakes, crucifixes, fire, jokes about garlic omelets, sunlight that burns the vampires to ashes, bites to the jugular, etc. No vampire sparkles in this movie.

Anton Yelchin, as the hero, is a definite improvement over William Ragsdale’s boring performance in the original film. It takes a while to like him, but that’s really the point seeing as how Charley starts out as a jerk. Imogen Poots, as his girlfriend, is a somewhat improvement over Amanda Bearse’s whiny, annoying performance in the original film—sure, she’s prettier and doesn’t bug her boyfriend as much, but really that’s just it about her until the final half of the movie. (The less said about that, the better.) Toni Collette has a dopey-mom role, but that’s a lot better than the valium-high (and barely visible) mother in the original film. I wasn’t sure how Christopher Mintz-Plasse would handle the role that was played by Stephen Geoffreys with such hilarious intensity as the best friend Evil Ed in the original film. But he’s quite amusing in this remake, mainly because he makes it his own character.

And for those who have seen the original film, don’t think I’ve forgotten about Peter Vincent. Let’s face it—he was the best thing about the original “Fright Night,” played by Roddy McDowell in a terrific comic performance. Peter Vincent was a Hollywood B-actor who is out of a job because no one wants to see vampires or vampire slayers in movies anymore, and then gets involved in a crazy run-in with a real vampire. David Tennant plays Peter Vincent in the remake as more droll and self-indulgent. He’s a foul, rude, aggressive playboy who lives in a Las Vegas penthouse occupied with a lot of vampire artifacts (and silver bullets—you know, for werewolves). And when a vampire first confronts him, Peter does what the true Peter Vincent doesn’t do on stage for his horror show—scream and run. But eventually, he does team up with Charley and sneak into Jerry’s lair because he’s so drunk he’ll do anything. (I love the bit where they reach the basement and he says he’s probably not drunk enough for this.)

“Fright Night” is an ambitious, well-made horror movie with some real production value. However, it’s not a great horror film. There’s an unnecessary introductory scene that features a character that is so obviously going to be killed—I’m tired of scenes like that. The early scenes that show Charley interacting with his friends in high school don’t look or feel the least bit convincing. And while some of the CGI is impressive, more of it (like when Jerry transforms into an ugly beast or some vampires explode in sunlight) just seems so flashy and unrealistic. The prosthetic makeup is more impressive—Jerry’s two simple fangs look frightening enough. “Fright Night” is suitably scary, nicely acted (particularly with strong work by Colin Farrell and David Tennant), good-looking, and funny when it needs to be. I recommend this remake as an energetic horror film.

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

There’s a new unique serial killer in the horror movie genre these days and he’s labeled only as the Jigsaw Killer. Jigsaw is known as a mysterious person who kidnaps people and brings them to his deadly traps that they can get out of by doing inhumane (mostly gruesome) deeds. The victims are people he sees as being wasteful of their lives and his games are their ways of redemption, if they make it out alive. Jigsaw never kills any of his victims—he sets it up so that they can either live or die by these tests. Do they have the will to survive, is his key question.

He cuts a jigsaw puzzle piece into the flesh of his unsuccessful subjects, hence the nickname Jigsaw Killer. Nobody knows his true identity—his only distinguished manners are his deep, raspy voice and his demonic-looking clown puppet doll that “speaks” for him on video. As if that wasn’t creepy enough, he’s rigged to ride a tricycle to “congratulate” his survivors.

The Jigsaw Killer is one of the more distinctive villains in horror movie history—ranking with Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lector and the killer from “Seven.” He makes himself known in the film “Saw,” a slick, suitably gruesome, tense thriller that is both psychological and gory. There’s blood and gore, but there’s also emotional tension and stress that keeps this from being a freak show.

Two men—Adam (Leigh Whannell, who also co-wrote the screenplay with director James Wan) and Lawrence (Cary Elwes)—awaken to find themselves chained by their ankles to pipes in a long-forgotten bathroom. Trapped, with a dead body lying in the middle of the floor, the two try to figure out why this happened and what they should do. They have instructions from their captor, as it’s all part of a game. If they don’t play it by Jigsaw’s rules, one or both of them will die.

Riddles and tools have also been left for Adam and Lawrence, including a gun, a tape recorder, and two hacksaws. What are the hacksaws for? “He doesn’t want us to cut through our chains,” Lawrence declares somberly. “He wants us to cut through our feet.”

The danger grows beyond the bathroom for Lawrence, as he learns his wife (Monica Potter) and daughter have been captured as well. Lawrence’s clear instruction is to kill Adam, or they’ll die. Meanwhile, the killer is being tracked by Detective Tapp (Danny Glover), looking to avenge his late ex-partner Sing (Ken Jeung) who fell victim to the killer. And we also get flashbacks to other bizarre occurrences set up by Jigsaw, including a drug addict (Shawnee Smith) who survived her “game” and claims that it actually helped her to see the finer things in life. And there’s a creep named Zep (Michael Emerson) who works as the hospital, where Lawrence is a surgeon, who may or may not be the killer.

A lot of these elements being thrown at us make “Saw” an overstuffed picture. Actually, I could have done without the subplot involving the detectives and the many twists that continue on. And I hated the rough editing that occurs whenever we flash back to a victim—the frantic fast-motion editing does nothing for me in those scenes. But the real tension comes from the two men in that bathroom and how they’re going to find ways to save themselves. “Saw” does a great job at keeping the suspense alive during these scenes. Also, the scenes of the drug addict getting over her near-death experience are effectively done. This sets the status for this intelligent psychopath who chooses his victims by what they do and how they act, and he puts them into these games as a bizarre act of irony and as a way of possibly surviving by doing horrible things that they could do if they had the willpower.

Really think about it—if you were given the choice to die or cut off your chained foot, what would you choose?

“Saw” is not only psychological; it’s also very gory. Those with weak stomachs should stay away from this film, because there are many disturbing images displayed in “Saw.” Enough to keep an R rating, but others that are a mere inch from an NC-17—in particular, the drug addict is forced to retrieve something from her dead fellow captive’s stomach with a knife, and we actually see the intestines as she pulls them out. Tell me that’s not NC-17 material.

The ending is unforgivable albeit effective. It’s a shocking development that reminded me of what I’ve endured and that the film did indeed work for me. “Saw” is a well-crafted thriller that introduces a new memorable killer to the cinema and terrifies in doing so.