Archive | March, 2013

Magic (1978)

11 Mar

Magic-Richard-Attenborough-1978_portrait_w858

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Magic” is an unsettling but well-made thriller with a nice take on the possessed ventriloquist’s dummy story. And it’s always fun to create stories featuring dolls or dummies with some sort of supernatural entity surrounding them, because they themselves are so wholesome-looking when they’re still that they have to have something sinisterly wrong with them.

Anthony Hopkins stars as Corky, a nervous novice magician who has failed in his attempt at professional magic. Knowing he needs a new gimmick, he comes back as a combination magician and ventriloquist with a foul-mouthed dummy named “Fats.” His act is successful, as he gains an agent (Burgess Meredith) who wants to sign him for his own TV show. Afraid of success, he takes off to the mountains, where he meets an old high school crush Peggy Ann Snow (Ann-Margret), stuck in a loveless marriage with Corky’s high school friend Duke (Ed Lauter).

Corky brings Fats with him, and he uses it to amuse Peggy. While Duke is gone, and Corky and Peggy get reacquainted, they develop the relationship that they would’ve had in high school if Corky weren’t so shy. But they also believe that they are soul mates and they wind up making love, leading to the jealousy of…Fats. As it seems, Corky cannot control Fats off-stage, and Fats even talks him into performing murderous deeds to save himself.

The genius of the film is that it’s never fully explained if the dummy “Fats” is alive, let alone evil. While it may seem that Fats may have developed a malevolent personality of its own, it’s never quite clear. Corky and Fats do have unsettling conversations; however, Fats’ lips don’t move unless Corky is controlling him, and yet he still continues to talk. That’s a very clever move and makes “Magic” more of a psychological thriller than a horror film—it presents the implication that maybe Corky is of two minds: the innocence that we see and the psychotic instability that comes from the notion that Corky doesn’t want to go back to the way he was. In that case, it’s really quite fascinating. There’s a lot you could read into this—is the doll alive or just a manifestation of Corky’s id? And how far will it go? Will it go so far that Fats won’t allow Corky to make his own decisions?

The direction by Richard Attenborough and the writing by William Goldman, based upon his own novel, is effective enough to make the story of a possible possessed malevolent doll seem somewhat plausible. There are many eerie, troubling scenes centered around Corky’s unstable mind as he talks with Fats about doing what he wants to do to stay with Peggy, and the way it continues to develop further and further into the horror element is efficiently well-done. Also, the little moments such as Corky teaching Peggy a magic card trick have their own charms.

Anthony Hopkins turns in an excellent performance as Corky, a man who appears to be innocent and balanced, but also disturbed and sad. And of course, I should also credit his work as the voice of Fats, sounding much like a British TV comic (fittingly enough, since he’s made for show business). Hopkins is great in this movie, and so is Ann-Margret, who is fun and charming as the potential love interest. She sparkles throughout the movie.

“Magic” is a terrific thriller with an eerie feel, a strong leading actor, and a suitably creepy doll. I can predict that even those who won’t find this movie scary will still see it as a brilliant character study and psychological case.

Matinee (1993)

11 Mar

matinee_1993_2

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Where do I even start with this movie? “Matinee,” directed by Joe Dante and written by Charlie Haas, is a wonderful comedy with so many things going for it, and most of it surprisingly meshes really well with each other. What do we have? We have the Cuban Missile Crisis, young love, nostalgia, a schlocky filmmaker/showman, the premiere of his latest B-movie, several teenagers (including a jealous boyfriend), and even manages to bring in legitimate family drama as well. How are Dante and Haas able to pull all of this off in one terrific movie?

The movie is set in Key West, Florida in the fall of 1962—a time when B-movies represented innocence and imagination (and great silliness). Anything can happen in these movies, mostly thanks to gamma rays and radiation that manages to turn insects into gigantic monstrosities that terrorize cities. But suddenly, all that “nuclear stuff” doesn’t seem too innocent now that America has learned from President Kennedy that Cuba is armed with nuclear missiles, and the U.S. Navy is blockading against an oncoming Russian fleet. This of course gets the people in a panic, especially those in Key West, which is just 90 miles away from Cuba.

Enter exploitation filmmaker Lawrence Woolsey (John Goodman), who specializes in grade-B horror movies and theatrical gimmicks. With the panic going on in Key West, Woolsey sees this as the perfect time and place to premiere his latest schlocky production, a monster movie about a man who mutates into a giant ant—“Mant!”—due to, you guessed it, radiation. For teenage army-brat Gene Loomis (Simon Fenton), whose father is on one of the Navy blockade ships, the film’s premiere date is going to be a great day since he is a monster-movie fan. He sees Woolsey as a hero.

Gene is so much a fan of monster movies that he recognizes a B-movie actor when he sees one—that’s why he’s the only one to recognize one of the people who publicly denounces “Mant” a couple nights before its premiere, an out-of-work actor hired by Woolsey to further publicize the movie. (You see, it turns out that boycotters only make people further want to see the movie—I guess times haven’t changed since 1962.) Gene calls Woolsey up on the con and in exchange for keeping the secret, Woolsey shows Gene around the theater for a behind-the-scenes tour to see what tricks he has in store for his audience on Saturday afternoon.

While this is going on, there are numerous subplots in the real world—one involves Gene as he and his family (his mother and little brother Dennis) cope with the knowledge that the man of the house is now in the danger zone; another involves Gene’s new buddy Stan (Omri Katz) as he asks the “nice girl in the class,” Sherry (Kellie Martin), out on a date for Saturday, only to be threatened by a hoodlum (James Villemaire) who used to date Sherry; and another involves Gene as he befriends Sandra (Lisa Jakub), the daughter of a pair of beatniks who defend the “Mant” premiere. Sandra has her own ways of acting out—particularly, she’s the only one in school who states aloud that the classic “duck-and-cover” protection against the nuclear bomb won’t save anybody. (This even gets one of the kids in the hall to whisper, “That girl’s a Communist!”)

Everything leads to the final half-hour of “Matinee,” in which every plot development comes together. Gene, his little brother, Stan, Sherry, and Sandra end up seeing “Mant” on Saturday afternoon, there’s a large crowd because of the publicity, and Woolsey can use many of the surprises he prepared for this event—there are buzzers in the seats and a new process called “Rumble Rama” that has the theater shaking like it’s in an earthquake. He’s giving his audience a real show, and he’s loving every minute of it. Thankfully, so is a head studio executive who admires Woolsey’s childlike spirit.

And it’s easy for us to care so much for Woolsey throughout the movie. It’s obvious that this guy loves to make his movies, no matter how bad or laughable they might be, and he just wants to put on a show. John Goodman does a fantastic job at playing Lawrence Woolsey with a sense of enthusiasm and demented zaniness. How can you not love the bit in which he notices a stuffed alligator at a busted gas station, and immediately has an epiphany? (“She-Gator, Alli-Gal, GAL-a-Gator!”)

My favorite scene involves Woolsey telling Gene about his theory of “the first monster movie.” The way he puts it, a caveman is chased by a mammoth and barely makes it back to his cave alive. So he wants to tell people about the experience, and he draws a picture of the beast on his wall. But when he realizes people are coming to see it, he knows he has to make it look scarier (“make the teeth longer and the tusks bigger”). “Boom! The first monster movie,” says Woolsey. “That’s probably why I still do it. You make the teeth as big as you want, then you kill it off, everything’s okay, the lights come up…” It’s a wonderful scene that gives an even bigger sense of what this guy’s all about.

By the way, the movie-within-the-movie (“Mant”) is quite a treasure. We see a lot of clips from the movie on the screen (or screen-within-the-screen), and it’s a worthy parody of those actual B-movies of the time. There are silly creature effects, a lot of “scientific” exposition, and inane lines of dialogue, such as when the mant’s worried wife tries to tell the Army general that “Bill” is only a shoe salesman, not a monster—the general replies, “Would you let THAT fit you in a pump?” It’s a joy to watch, when we’re able to.

matinee_3

Also funny is a one-scene parody of ‘60s children’s movies, about a man that turned into a shopping cart and shakes up crooks (who wear ski masks and fall down in comedic fashion, while being covered in paint and having quirky-happy music playing in the background).

Anyway, about the movie’s final act involving the big premiere, I can only reveal that everything that could go wrong does go wrong in ways you couldn’t begin to expect. (I won’t even go into how the jealous hoodlum boyfriend gets into the mix.) There are so many things happening all at once, and it kept my attention throughout. I was laughing and smiling at the creativity of the screenplay; everything set up before has paid off ultimately.

John Goodman does a great job, as I already mentioned. And the other actors do good work as well. The young actors (Simon Fenton, Omri Katz, Kellie Martin, Lisa Jakub) are very likeable and appealing. And Cathy Moriarty, as Woolsey’s girlfriend and leading-lady in his film, is excellent as the bored, deadpan, busty blonde who always complains about how his man is too much of a dreamer to face the reality that their careers are “going nowhere.” (Of course, this doesn’t stop her from dressing up in a nurse’s uniform at the premiere and getting kids to sign “medical consent forms” in case they get too scared.) Also funny is Robert Picardo as the overly-nervous theater manager, who has a radio by his side in case the bombs come falling (he even has a fallout shelter in the theater basement designed just for him).

“Matinee” is chuck-full of surprises and pleasures, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. It’s fun, amusing, imaginative, dramatic when it needs to be (particularly when it comes to Gene’s family), and rather brilliant.

Big (1988)

10 Mar

Tom-in-Big-tom-hanks-9828233-1024-576

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If “Back to the Future” brought up the idea that teenagers don’t think their parents were ever young and that their parents never think they’re old, then “Big” brings up the idea that teenagers should embrace their youth and shouldn’t hurry to become old.

“Big” is a wonderful comedy-drama and it comes with a surprising story idea that has been done in so many other movies around the time this movie was released. It’s a body-swap movie—a movie in which one person turns into somebody else, and sometimes it’s vice versa. This string of movies started in October 1987, when “Like Father, Like Son,” a bad reimagining of the OK 1977 Disney comedy “Freaky Friday,” was released. Then, in early 1988, two other movies were released around the same idea—the terrific “Vice Versa” and the bland “18 Again!” One can imagine the pleasantly surprising success of “Big.” With a funny, intelligent screenplay and an excellent performance by Tom Hanks as a young boy’s mind inside an older man’s body, “Big” is a triumph—a most appealing comedy that’s amusing, insightful, and a lot of fun.

Josh Baskin (David Moscow) is your typical, average 13-year-old boy. He hangs out with his best friend Billy (Jared Rushton), hates doing household chores, and has a crush on the tall popular girl in school, but is too nervous to talk to her. He gets his chance to talk to her while in line for a carnival ride, but he’s embarrassed when he’s told he’s too short to ride the ride. While walking in misery, he comes across an arcade game—a strange fortune-telling machine that isn’t plugged in, but still seems to work, as it asks Josh to make a wish. Josh wishes to be “big” and gets a fortune saying his wish is granted.

The following morning, he’s surprised to realize that his wish has come true. He no longer looks like 13-year-old Josh anymore; he’s 30-year-old Josh (played by Tom Hanks), though he still has his 13-year-old mind. When his own mother doesn’t recognize him, Josh turns his buddy Billy for help. Billy believes that this strange man really is Josh and helps him find the same game to wish himself back to normal.

Josh goes to New York City to find the game anywhere he can, but has to wait six weeks for a list of all carnivals and arcades so he can track it down. This means he’ll have to live in the city, so he has to find a job and he gets one, working as a data processor for McMillan Toys. He meets the boss (Robert Loggia), who likes his energy and enthusiasm around the office, at FAO Schwartz, where he’s pleased to see how much Josh knows about toys and moves him up to Vice President of Product Development. Billy can’t believe Josh’s good fortune—they pay him to play with toys and report on them, to which Billy playfully replies, “Suckers!” I wouldn’t blame him; it’s a kid’s dream come true.

As Josh continues with his job, he meets a co-worker named Susan (Elizabeth Perkins), the floozy who, as hinted, has slept with almost everyone at the company. She plans to do the same with Josh, but is genuinely attracted to his child-like innocence as he invites her over to his new apartment, that has what every kid would want in his own place, which include a free-Pepsi machine (by that, I mean the machine is rigged), a pinball machine, and a giant trampoline. Josh falls for Susan and Susan is surprised to feel the same way towards him.

That human-interest story is surprisingly well-handled. They lead to sweet, lighthearted moments in which we feel for the characters and realize what exactly was missing from the other body-swap movies released around this time. Credit for that must go to the writers Gary Ross and Anne Spielberg (Steven Spielberg’s sister) for taking their time to develop the characters as well as the situations. There are a lot of great scenes in the movie that either lead to laughs or smiles. Examples—the scene in which Josh gives an idea for a toy in a board meeting; Josh’s response to Susan first saying she wants to spend the night with him (“OK…but I get to be on top!”); Josh and Susan jumping on that trampoline in Josh’s apartment, and more. There are also moments of convincing drama, such as Josh’s first night in the city and Josh calling his mother to hear her voice because he misses her.

Also, the movie has no real villains. I mean, sure, there’s a co-worker—Susan’s ex-boyfriend named Paul, played by John Heard—who wants to humiliate Josh for getting all the attention. But it isn’t pushed further; he’s just an office jerk. And that’s actually kind of refreshing. “Big” doesn’t need a villain. The only conflict that should be focused upon is developed in the final act. The final act is when Josh is too much in tune with his new body, new job, and new girlfriend, and then Billy comes along to remind him of who he really is and why he came to the city in the first place. This brings the question of whether or not Josh will make the decision to wish himself to be young again or stay the way he is, losing his teenage/young adult years.

Before “Big” was released, most people have labeled Tom Hanks as just OK in the early 1980s. Many critics thought he was bland in comedies like “Splash” and “The Man in One Red Shoe” (and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t see what they meant). But in “Big,” he gives a star-making performance. Tom Hanks is brilliant as a young boy trapped in an older man’s body. He behaves like a kid, talks like a kid, and has the innocence of a kid. Therefore, the audience is convinced that they’re watching a “big” kid. The way Hanks acted in this performance was very clever—the director Penny Marshall rehearsed many of Hanks’ scenes with the young actor David Moscow’s scenes, so that Hanks could observe how Moscow would act in those scenes and copy him. The result is Tom Hanks’ excellent performance.

The supporting cast members do nice jobs. In particular, Elizabeth Perkins is convincing as Susan, Jared Rushton is appealing as Billy, and Robert Loggia, with a twinkle in his eye, is wonderful as the boss who admires this strange man’s energy. In the best-looking scene in the movie, Josh and his boss play/dance to “Heart and Soul” together on a giant carpet piano in the middle of the toy store, as everyone watches. It’s a wonderful scene—good-looking, funny, and played wonderfully, while Hanks and Loggia perform without stunt doubles.

“Big” is a treasure of a movie—pleasant, enjoyable, funny, well-written and well-acted.

Less Than Zero (1987)

10 Mar

less than zero 1987

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I wouldn’t be a fair critic if I reviewed “Less Than Zero” based only on the novel of the same name that the film is based on—so I guess in that sense it’s fortunate for me, because I hadn’t read the novel. But I heard that this film had very little do with it, save for its title and subject matter. I’m reviewing “Less Than Zero” as a movie. I thought it was a sad, effective portrait about how cocaine—and having more of it—can mess your life up. It features the same kind of rich, white, young yuppies seen in “St. Elmo’s Fire,” which I thought was kind of terrible in the way that the characters were portrayed. “Less Than Zero,” in my opinion, is better because it shows that these characters actually know what they’re getting into and just can’t deal with the reality of facing the future.

The three leads of the film are high school graduates who are best friends and have grown up together in Beverly Hills, California. In an opening scene, we see that they’re happy that things are working out great for them. Two of them are going to school in Harvard; the other is being set up in the recording industry. The latter one’s deal is supported by his rich father. All three of these kids come from rich families.

Cut to six months later, when suddenly, things aren’t the way we saw them in that scene. Clay (Andrew McCarthy, “St. Elmo’s Fire” and “Pretty in Pink”) has had his first semester at college without his girlfriend Blair (Jami Gertz), who, as we see in a flashback, decided to stay because she “wasn’t ready.” We also see that Clay hasn’t contacted Blair or his best friend Julian (the one getting the recording job, played by Robert Downey Jr.) since he caught them both in bed together on Thanksgiving. Blair calls Clay and asks him to see her—she knows that he’ll be home to see his family for Christmas. So Clay returns home and gets reacquainted with old friends at local parties. He meets up with a terrified Blair who tells Clay that Julian is in trouble. She tells him that Julian disappears for quite a time and wakes up not knowing where he is. And now, Julian is in debt by the local cocaine dealer, a suave young man named Rip (well-played by James Spader).

Julian is hooked on cocaine and hasn’t had things going for him since he started with it. He’s been kicked out his parents’ house, lost the recording studio, spent all of his money, and is constantly in a state of confusion. He tries to keep his cool when around the visiting Clay. But Clay knows something is wrong and that Julian may be on the path to self-destruction, if he hasn’t self-destructed already. So what can he do? How can you get someone to stop when he has a drug addiction?

This is where “Less Than Zero” gets disturbing, but it’s also tragic and effective. I didn’t think the film was dumb or dull. I thought the story played itself out just right in how these characters are developed into people who started out with everything and could possibly end up with nothing if they continue along this path. “St. Elmo’s Fire” tried to cover this issue, but not to good effect. The people in that movie didn’t seem like real people to me. “Less Than Zero” seems more realistic.

The film’s performances are terrific. Andrew McCarthy is suitably nice as the young man who finds his friend’s life going down the drain. The beautiful Jami Gertz is quite good, playing a frightened girl who has cocaine problems of her own. But the best performances come from Robert Downey Jr. and James Spader. Downey Jr. gives a frightening portrayal of a young man who took the wrong path and is currently on the brink of losing everything he had, which could also mean his own life. And the best thing—his acting is so subtle. The less-than-subtle way of showing this character’s self-destruction goes to McCarthy’s observations of it. Downey Jr. does such an excellent job as this character that it almost seems real and in that case, frightening. Spader starts out as suave and cool, but then develops into an intimidating personality. But the truth is, he’s not really a bad guy; in fact, he’s kind of reasonable. We can see that in the scene in which Clay tries to tell the guy to lay off of Julian. He gets the response; “I’m not the problem. Julian is the problem.”

The film’s ending took me by surprise. I didn’t expect it to go the way it did, but it was like a kick to the gut. I won’t give away the ending, but I can say it is tragic. “Less Than Zero” is a cautionary tale of what can happen when addicted to cocaine (or any other drug, for that matter) and it works.

30 Minutes or Less (2011)

10 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I know a lot of critics reviewing the comedy “30 Minutes or Less” bring up the tragic incident that this film plays its premise off of. To get through it quick, this is a movie about a pizza delivery man with a bomb strapped to him by some guys who tell him to rob a bank or they’ll blow him up. This is a flashback to a 2003 incident where a pizza delivery man planned to rob a bank with what was supposed to be a fake bomb strapped to him, but his partners double-crossed him with a real bomb.

I must confess I didn’t know about that at the time I was watching “30 Minutes or Less,” and I enjoyed watching it with blissful ignorance. Knowing now, I guess I should hate it now, right? Well…I don’t.

No, I still find “30 Minutes or Less” to be a reasonably entertaining comedy that managed to take a grim situation and make it quite amusing. It doesn’t break new ground or fashion a distressing tale about greed, and a lot of the humor comes from politically incorrectness. But I laughed, I wasn’t ashamed by it (for the most part), and I liked the comic actors that are oddly game for this material. It’s not a breakthrough comedy hit, like “Zombieland,” directed by Ruben Fleischer, the same director of this film. It’s just a modestly funny film.

Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) is a loser. He’s a post-college age pizza delivery guy with no ambition in life. He’s labeled a pathetic “man-child,” even by his best (and only) friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) who works as a substitute teacher. Things aren’t much better between the two of them when Chet finds out that Nick has slept with his twin sister Kate (Dilshad Cadsaria) and still has feelings for her.

Meanwhile, two even bigger losers have come up with a scheme. This is Dwayne (Danny McBride), a hapless, witless, wisecracking jackass, and Travis (Nick Swardson), his equally-luckless buddy. Dwayne lives with his Ex-Marine father “Major” (Fred Ward), and makes 10 bucks just by cleaning his swimming pool. “Major” has won the lottery and Dwayne gets the idea of hiring a hitman to kill him so he can get that money. They need a hundred grand to pay off the hitman (Michael Pena). What to do? Travis creates a bomb vest and he and Dwayne decide to strap it to some unfortunate loser and force him to rob a bank or blow him up. They order a pizza, Nick is the delivery guy, and there you go.

Of course, they could have just constructed a realistic-looking fake bomb vest and robbed the bank themselves instead of hiring a hostage. But oh well.

Scared out of his wits, Nick turns to Chet for help and as the bomb timer is winding down, Nick and Chet pair up to pull off the robbery and save their own lives.

There’s something about the tone that is just right for the movie and makes it watchable. Ruben Fleischer is careful not to overdo the heavier material. The robbery scene is paced just perfectly, with the right dose of comedy. And even though there are routine car chases, they’re still lively enough and not supposed to be taken too seriously.

Jesse Eisenberg is a likable lead and Aziz Ansari is a game comedic foil. Together, these two are a good buddy-comedy duo with very amusing banter. Even though Eisenberg’s character makes so many stupid mistakes, running around with explosives strapped to his chest and even risking the life of his girlfriend (who, by the way, is only in the movie so she can be kidnapped in the climax), it’s hard not to like and root for him.

Danny McBride’s Dwayne is an effective villain for this material—idiotic, menacing, and charismatic. This is the McBride I was looking for and really missed in the dreadful “Your Highness.” Nick Swardson is usually next to Rob Schneider as a constantly failing comedic actor, but now he has found the right role as Dwayne’s sidekick—smart, but completely weak-minded compared to Dwayne’s strong will. He’s quite funny here.

Also having their moments in “30 Minutes or Less” are Fred Ward, outstanding as Dwayne’s ex-Marine father with that Fred Ward strict attitude (and a pen-gun, if you can believe it); Michael Pena as the not-entirely-macho hitman the guys hire; and Bianca Kajlich as a stripper named “Juicy,” who goes crazy when someone messes with her investment.

“30 Minutes or Less” recalls some effective moments in “Pineapple Express,” has some game comic actors who do what they can, and brings the laughs however it can. Even if some of the gags don’t work and its raunchy jokes are sophomoric to say the least. But it never runs out of steam and it’s over in just an hour and twenty minutes, excluding the end credits. Laughs overstay the film’s flaws.

Can’t Buy Me Love (1987)

10 Mar

600full-can't-buy-me-love-screenshot

Smith’s Verdict: *

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Among the “teen movies” that came around during the mid-‘80s, 1987’s “Can’t Buy Me Love” is a stupid one. Not just stupid because of the lazy storytelling and unfunny dialogue, but because its teenage characters are stupid. This is a disgrace to the genre of “teen movies,” if there ever was such a genre. (And let’s face it—there is.)

The film’s main character is a geeky outcast named Ronald Miller. The only reason he’s labeled a nerd and a geek is because he doesn’t play football, tell raunchy jokes, act nasty even in public (one of the football players has a—excuse me—gas problem, ho ho), or date the most popular girl in school. Instead, he spends most of his days playing poker with his friends and mowing lawns to save up for an overly expensive telescope. (Really? A telescope? Is it really worth it?) He mows the lawn of the school’s queen bee, named Cindy, who is completely irresponsible, shallow, and selfish (but she’s beautiful—that’s all that counts in this high school, right?). Her first scene shows her mother disappointed that she used her credit card on the most expensive wardrobe—her mother asks, “Why can’t you be as responsible as Ronald Miller?” Cindy scoffs, “Mom, get real.”

One of Cindy’s acts of irresponsibleness leads her to a desperate need for a thousand dollars, which Ronald conveniently happens to have. He’s desperate to become popular in school so he offers the money to her in exchange for her pretending to be his girlfriend for a month, hoping that it will make him popular.

Let me stop there—what springs her need for cash is that she stole her mother’s suede jacket and wound up accidentally spilling red wine on it at a back-to-school party. This is unrealistic and (broken record) stupid. Or maybe the filmmakers wanted to highlight the expensive items they could possess (i.e. the jacket).

So the plan works (again, stupid) and Ronald is among the elite crowd and ditching his “nerdy” friends. But the way these popular students are portrayed is insulting. They’re portrayed as cruel, mean-spirited jocks that look ready to go for the kill whenever the “nerds” stand up at a high school dance. And they’re also dumb and witless, to be added. Ronald becomes one of them—a snobbish jerk who forgets the better deal of high school life and everyone looks to him as the popular guy in school. There’s one scene set at a high school dance in which he performs a dance move which he learned from “African Hour” instead of “American Bandstand,” looking like a complete idiot. The elite crowd doesn’t know what to think, but then they state, “Since he’s doing it, let’s do it too.” And it’s the nerds who have a big laugh (I have to admit, that one bit was kind of funny).

What about the parents? With the exception of Cindy’s mother, the parents are either uncaring or missing. Then again, this is a “teen movie.” They don’t have much to do in this genre anyway, with the exception of “Sixteen Candles,” with that scene in which the father and daughter have a nice little talk.

The actors who portray Ronald and Cindy—Patrick Dempsey and Amanda Peterson—do give off some appeal, but they deserve a whole lot better in script and role. Their characters would fit in with no problem in a dumb high school sitcom, which is exactly how “Can’t Buy Me Love” functions.

Tall Tale: The Unbelievable Adventures of Pecos Bill (1995)

10 Mar

MSDTATA EC004

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Tall Tale: The Unbelievable Adventures of Pecos Bill” is an entertaining family adventure that has an interesting group of heroes for its target audience—being a Disney film, I assume that’s children under the age of ten, although if you get past the silliness of the premise, people of all ages can enjoy it too. The premise and its group of heroes are quite intriguing material for a family adventure movie. It’s a Western about a young boy who saves his family’s farm from an evil land developer with help from three legendary figures—Paul Bunyan, John Henry, and Pecos Bill. That’s our group of heroes (the “tall tales” of the title)—folk heroes, not necessarily superpeople with abilities to fly or practice jujitsu onto their enemies. Already, I’m intrigued. Even if “Tall Tale: The Unbelievable Adventures of Pecos Bill” gets a little too ridiculous at times, it is mostly very entertaining.

The boy’s name is Daniel Hackett (Nick Stahl, who’s OK but a little bland in the role) who has been told these tall tales by his prideful father Jonas (Stephen Lang). They live in Paradise Valley, a Western area untouched by sinister land developer Stiles (Scott Glenn) that plans to tear it all down as soon as he gets the deeds to every inch of it. But Jonas turns down Stiles’ offer, which leads one of Stiles’ hired guns to wound him. Jonas leaves the deed to the land to Daniel, who runs and winds up falling asleep on a boat in the nearby lake. But he awakens to find himself in a Texas desert (magically, I suppose), where he meets the first of the three heroes he will encounter—gun-slingin’ cowboy Pecos Bill (Patrick Swayze, who is hands-down the coolest person in the movie). As Pecos Bill assists Daniel to get back home for his father, they run into lumberjack Paul Bunyan (Oliver Platt) and strongman John Henry (Roger Aaron Brown) along the way. They teach Daniel how to stand up for himself and his beliefs.

It’s a strong asset to the movie that these “tall tales” are represented with the same dignity of their legend. Pecos Bill may remind some viewers of Indiana Jones, but I guess that’s the point in giving him an adventurous personality with a sly sense of humor and manner. John Henry is a strongman who knows a thing or too about pride and respect (and had his own rocky relationship with his own father which shadows the life Daniel has with his strict father). Paul Bunyan is not a giant (though he is relatively large in human height), but he is as strong as they come when it comes to lumberjacking—he even lives inside of a hollowed-out redwood tree, which is a nice touch. (And of course, there’s Paul’s loyal blue ox, Babe, to complete the ensemble.) All three roles are played very well by the actors.

The film is not great—some motivations are unclear, and the writers couldn’t avoid sentimental clichés as well as adventurous clichés (such as when Daniel is only inches away from being cut in a sawmill). And there’s a walk-on by Calamity Jane (Catherine O’Hara), who I wished had a much larger part. But there are some things to like about it, especially the visuals. Visually, “Tall Tale: The Unbelievable Adventures of Pecos Bill” is a treat, with top-notch production design and great cinematography. There are many great shots in the movie; my most favorite features a mountain meadow where butterflies flutter around the characters. The visuals, the heroes, and some gripping adventure sequences make “Tall Tale: The Unbelievable Adventures of Pecos Bill” a terrific adventure indeed.

Jade

9 Mar

8182604

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

NOTE: Before I begin this review, I’m obligated to state that I saw this film at a private premiere-screening at Rave Motion Pictures in North Little Rock, Arkansas, and that the film will soon begin its film-festival run. Whatever editing alterations there may be since its screening won’t be significant to this review.

There is a campaign known as “Not for Sale- Arkansas.” According to their Facebook page information, their mission is “to spread awareness in Northwest Arkansas regarding the human trafficking epidemic within the US and the world.” I don’t guess I was fully aware of the horror that is human trafficking, but I now know that statistics show over 30 million people are victims of kidnapping, slavery, and prostitution, among other things. And this campaign is here to help raise awareness of it, and also to bring back the lives of individuals who have practically nearly had theirs destroyed by it.

The made-in-Arkansas indie feature “Jade,” written and directed by Little Rock native Jess V. Carson, is a film that centers on the atrocity that is human trafficking that I don’t think I realized was happening right around us. It can happen anywhere. (Hell, maybe we’ve seen it on the streets of our hometown and just never realized what was really going on.) The film tells a fictional tale about such a young woman, named Jade, who was a victim of captivity and sets out to rebuild her life.

From Jade’s voiceover narration, we learn that her mother sold Jade to a pimp at age 12, and Jade has been serving him ever since. Through numerous intensive flashback sequences, we see the sheer unpleasantness of what she went through, along with other women (one of which is only about 12-13 years old), and the fear and distress that she can no longer deal with. This drives her to escape, as she hitches a ride to the next town (presumably North Little Rock, AR).

Free from her captor (seen in flashbacks as a truly sick individual known as “Prince,” played by Scott McEntire), Jade (Krystal Kaminar) spends most of her time at the local library, and stays at a motel (spending money she stole from Prince). Soon enough, two people come into her life. One of them is the kind librarian, Marcie (Verda Davenport-Booher), who notices that this young woman is in need of some sort of benefit. So she hires her to work in the library, and also invites her to stay in her home. (By the way, one of my favorite scenes in the film is how Marcie is able to convince Jade to accept her invitation—she practically pushes her, saying, “Ask me anything you want so you know you can trust me.” Great line.)

The other person who arrives into Jade’s life is Garrett (Joe Ochterbeck), an earnestly-goofy young man who also works in the library and clearly does not know the meaning of the word “quit.” He spots Jade and constantly tries to make small talk with her, while Jade, who doesn’t trust men anymore, is cold towards him and always cuts right through the bull. To be fair, though, Garrett is a nice guy who persists for friendship, not for sex.

The flashback sequences, which are intersected between scenes set in the present-day, don’t back down from the horror that Jade underwent. These scenes that show the living environment of Jade and her fellow victims of smuggling are disturbing and even painful (though no on-screen sex is present, and the most graphic violence mostly occurs off-screen, but clever editing still makes it effective). In particular is whenever the loathsome Prince arrives on-screen to set his “slaves” straight in his eyes—it feels like the real deal. Credit for that not only goes to the believable performances by the actors (which I’ll get to soon), but also to the screenplay by Jess V. Carson. The dialogue rings true, and the situations seem realistic—you can tell that Carson did her research on the subject, and she even claimed at the panel discussion of the aforementioned private premiere-screening, at which I saw the film, that she interviewed a former victim of human trafficking, and gained insight for the script. It shows.

The flashbacks present a great contrast to the present-day story, but that’s what’s needed in order to further represent the developments and changes that Jade will undergo with her new life in comparison to her past. This is an important element that helps make “Jade” an effective tale of redemption, as Jade continues to reconstruct her life after a horrid past. The first few times she spends with Marcie and Garrett, she’s uncertain and very standoffish. But as she spends even more time with these two nice people, she learns to trust for the first time after years of despair and feeling worthless/hopeless. She now feels like she may have something worth living for, and feels comfortable for once.

Among the film’s strengths are the performances from the actors. Lead actress Krystal Kaminar portrays Jade convincingly, and really sells the dramatic moments (particularly in most of the flashback scenes). It’s an effective representation of the kind of person that falls victim to human trafficking and needs help in order to distance herself far from it—the kind of person these anti-trafficking campaigns (whose web links are posted in the “Resources” section of the film’s website www.jadethemovie.com) are here for.

Of the other principal actors, Scott McEntire is suitably creepy as vile Prince, portraying the menacing pimp in a disturbingly plausible manner; Verda Davenport-Booher is excellent as helpful Marcie, the “guardian angel” (if you will) of the story (she has that distinctive presence as an actress, and there’s just something about her voice that makes you want to listen to whatever she says); Joe Ochterbeck is winningly sincere as Garrett, and also finds the right note of realistic goofiness for comic relief. Also terrific is Kayla Esmond as Nina, who was Jade’s lone companion and fellow victim of abduction.

What it really comes down to with “Jade” is the message, which is that there is a way for people with tragic pasts to overcome their fears and turn everything around for the better. Jade finds the courage to break free from her bonds, and from seeing the horrific memories of what she’s been through, we know she needed to. The truth of the matter is that human trafficking is a terrible reality in today’s society. We may not know about it, it may be covered up, we may not notice it if it’s right around us…but it is here.

“Jade” gets its message across and it also manages to end with a sense of courage and hope, and thankfully Carson’s script didn’t succumb to conventional plot gimmicks in order to do so. This film is very effective, and I hope it finds its audience during its festival run and beyond.

127 Hours (2010)

9 Mar

bilde

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

OK, so acclaimed Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle has a film that has only a limited theatrical release. At the time, I thought it was quite odd for a movie made by the director of the Oscar-winning “Slumdog Millionaire” to not get a wide release. But then, I realized that this movie—entitled “127 Hours”—is based on the true story of Aron Ralston’s…incident. In 2003, Aron Ralston, a 27-year-old hiker, hiked along Blue John Canyon in Utah without telling anybody where he was going. Something went wrong and he fell into a narrow canyon—his right forearm was crushed by a boulder against the rock wall, keeping him trapped in there for nearly five days until he finally did what he had to do in order to escape and live. What he had to do is shown in great detail for a three-minute gruesome scene in “127 Hours”—it’s a scene so gruesome that many test audiences for the movie either walked out, fainted, or closed their eyes. This is why the movie is only in limited release.

Now, it’s not that I blame Fox Searchlight Pictures for a long trip to see this movie (I had to go all the way from Manila, Arkansas, to Little Rock to see it at Rave Motion Pictures—I usually see my movies in Jonesboro). It is a gruesome scene and I must admit that I did close my eyes at a couple points. But here’s my statement: You shouldn’t let three minutes of realistic gruesomeness in a 92-minute movie ruin a great experience. “127 Hours” is a haunting, effective, gripping, and unforgettable film that accurately tells the amazing story of how Aron Ralston came to terms with his own life while trapped “between a rock and a hard place” (that being the name of the book written by Ralston himself).

The movie stars James Franco in an excellent performance as Aron, a cocky, adventurous hiker who lives for adventure. By bicycle and foot, he treks along the Blue John Canyon in Utah just for the fun of it. We have a nice prologue in which we get great shots of the canyon—very lovely cinematography here—and we get to know Aron a little before the big incident. Aron starts his hike and then he meets up with two female hikers (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn). He shows them the way they want to go, but after they take a swim in an underwater cavern. Then, he waves goodbye to the women and goes off alone again…and then the unthinkable happens.

So he’s trapped inside the canyon and the thought of anybody looking for him (or even passing by) is unthinkable itself. People rarely hike down here and Aron isn’t close with anybody, so he didn’t tell anyone where he was going. He sums it all up in one word: “Oops.” No kidding—this is a pretty big “oops” moment. He’s very low on supplies, food, and water. He has a watch, a video camera, and a cheap multipurpose tool he tries to use to chip the rock a little so he can free his hand and get out of the canyon. But this shows no luck, since his hand seems to be supporting the rock, rather than the opposite.

I imagine it’d be very hard to make a movie like this. To make it right is a greater obstacle. How do you make a movie where a character remains immobile for more than an hour in the film? How do you make a startling story like this into a dramatically satisfying piece of work?

Well, I have the answer—the casting of James Franco. He makes for good company, his acting is natural, and he apparently knows Aron Ralston enough to make him seem like…Aron Ralston. He’s a wild adventurer who is also smart and quick-thinking. There is room for cockiness and humor (such as when he documents himself on his video camera and imagines himself on a talk show) while there is also a great deal of dramatic range. He realizes that he hasn’t appreciated his family and friends as much as he used to and since he is probably going to die here, he feels so sad about it. After a couple days in the canyon, he starts to experience hallucinations in which they all visit him. The drama in “127 Hours” really works, especially considering that we know that Aron will have his second chance after being trapped for five days in the canyon. He had to do what he had to do in order to live and that was…to use his cheap tool to self-amputate his arm. Would anybody have done it? I don’t know. I’m not even sure I would’ve done it, though it seems very logical. One thing is for sure—it is not easy to watch. This is a very unpleasant scene and I don’t blame anybody who had eyes closed. But it takes almost an hour and a half leading up to it, letting us understand who Aron is and why he’s doing this.

“127 Hours” is not a film I will soon forget. It’s an effective film set in some of the most beautiful places on Earth, it tells an accurate retelling of an amazing and haunting true story, the drama works wonderfully, the movie is splendidly well-made, and then there’s the most important ingredient—James Franco’s flawless portrayal of Aron Ralston. It also makes you think—this is a movie about a guy who never embraced life until he almost dies. He realizes that everyone he knew, he never appreciated until this moment. This goes to show that every second in life counts. It’s a terrific film.

Hollow Man (2000)

9 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Hollow Man” is a science-fiction film that is truly a missed opportunity, considering that a film about a man becoming invisible can be very interesting. Invisibility is a common fantasy for some people and “Hollow Man” would like to be the new adaptation of “The Invisible Man.” But instead, it starts out promisingly, but only gets worse as it continues, and ultimately results in an unnecessary and very silly action climax that shows that the screenwriters have given up trying to tell a compelling story and just decided to go for the throat. This is one of those scientific-experiment-gone-wrong movies, which can either be very effective or very campy. “Hollow Man” doesn’t fall into either of those categories.

It’s a shame too, because the film has some really great special effects. But effects don’t make a movie—if they did, there’d be more appreciation for the “Star Wars” prequels (but I digress). While the effects are eye-popping, they can’t excuse the film for its flaws.

“Hollow Man” starts out in an interesting way. There’s a startling shot in which an invisible predator eats a rat (since we can’t see the creature actually eat the rat, you can imagine a disgusting sight). And we learn of a top-secret experiment run by a six-member scientist team. Most notable is the egotistical, intelligent Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon), who plans to be the first human subject to be turned invisible. But it can be tricky, because if it doesn’t work, he could die. (This has only been tested on gorillas so far. By the way, don’t ask me how this invisibility formula works—there’s a great deal of technobabble that I didn’t get.) Luckily, the formula does work. After much eagerness, Sebastian is invisible.

This is a scientific breakthrough that can change the history of the world as we know it! Or at least, that’s what someone was supposed to say in a movie like this.

Sebastian takes a great deal of pride in his being invisible, and is constantly stalling on being changed back to his visible form. He’s having way too much fun and letting everything go to his head. What you can know for sure is that he is not going to give this up, and he has also become a sex fiend that his prey can’t see. The other scientists—including personality-deprived heroes Linda (Elisabeth Shue, who very rarely turns in a bad performance) and Matthew (Josh Brolin, equally wooden)—realize that Sebastian has transformed into a transparent monster and try to figure a way to change him back without him knowing, but Sebastian is one step ahead of them…

So you know the drill—big climax, transformation into a different movie (a practical slasher movie only the killer is unseen), heroes try to escape from an elevator shaft, and they improbably save the day. This final act of “Hollow Man” loses the film its dignity. When it isn’t boring, it’s laughable.

Kevin Bacon’s Sebastian is the only interesting character in “Hollow Man,” but only in the first hour. When he goes psycho and starts to kill off people, he becomes as ruthless as Jason and just as dull. The movie loses track of his plight and just gives him scenes of mindless violence to take over. Bacon does what he can with the role (that is, when he’s Sebastian’s disembodied voice after his character is invisible), but it’s just not enough.

I want to say more about the effects in “Hollow Man.” They’re incredible. When a gorilla is tested for the formula early in the movie, you actually see the layout of its skeleton, nerves, organs, muscles, and skin as it transforms. It’s not a simple task—most movies about invisibility just make the character disappear like that; but not here. We see what looks like a legitimate painful process and it’s repeated once Sebastian has undergone the procedure. These effects are outstanding, but it’s just not worth waiting for them to show up on screen.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →