Archive | March, 2013

SpaceCamp (1986)

9 Mar

joaquin phoenix SpaceCamp

Smith’s Verdict: **1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“SpaceCamp” had the misfortune of being released around the time of the tragic 1986 Challenger accident. The movie features a group of kids accidentally sent into space after a failure engine test on a shuttle, and the movie handles it very tensely so you couldn’t help but have flashbacks of that terrible occurrence with the Challenger. So the film wasn’t necessarily dead on arrival, but it certainly was doomed on arrival.

But how does the film itself hold up nowadays? Better, but that’s not saying much.

The movie is about a group of teenagers at NASA Space Camp. On a roll call by their astronaut host Andie (Kate Capshaw), there’s Kathryn (Lea Thompson, “Back to the Future”), a space enthusiast who really wants to be shuttle commander for the camp’s shuttle simulation, but is shifted to pilot; Kevin (Tate Donavan), a ne’er-do-well slacker who only signed up for Space Camp for his own Jeep, and has the hots for Kathryn; Tish (Kelly Preston), a new-age girl with a photographic memory; Rudy (Larry B. Scott) who lacks confidence; and Max (Joaquin Phoenix), the younger kid who is also a “Star Wars” fanatic and loves to spew its references.

In the first half of the movie, we see them go through the standard Space Camp procedures, though not standard to most of us watching it. Actually, this is one of the pleasures of the film—watching certain detail of the technical aspects at this camp has a real appeal. In particular, there’s a flight simulator and a pilot mechanical chair that spins about. I would have liked to see more of these elements, but they make way for moments of teenage melodrama, including a romance between Kevin and Kathryn that isn’t as interesting as what they’re going through with the camp activities.

I’ve heard arguments that the kids aren’t very bright and they make many mistakes. Well…some of these kids are first-timers. What do you expect? But then again, Andie puts a lot of pressure on them, like she expects more from them after what I guess is a week! No wonder they mess up badly in the simulator.

And if you can believe this, the Camp thinks this group is the right one to actually sit inside an actual shuttle during an engine test. How they were chosen after the washout simulator test is beyond me. And on top of that, why would NASA allow real kids to sit inside a real shuttle while real rockets are being fired? Shouldn’t they have taken into consideration that something could go wrong—something like, say…thermal curtain failure?

For those who don’t know, the movie explains that thermal curtain failure is very rare and it means that only one rocket will launch the shuttle and cause it to crash. Surely enough, through the efforts of an annoying robot (voiced by Frank Welker) befriended by Max that takes everything too literally, the thermal curtain does fail and NASA is forced to launch the shuttle, lest the shuttle crashes with the kids inside it.

So the kids, along with Andie, are thrust into space. At first, it seems like a dream come true. In a marvelous scene, we see them float around the cabin and get a great view of the sun setting on Earth. But there’s the issue of getting home without burning up in the Earth’s atmosphere. There’s no radio contact and there’s only one tank of oxygen left that won’t leave enough time for them to make the nearest window home. Luckily, Andie is an experienced astronaut and there’s a currently-under-construction space station that’s nearby with plenty of oxygen tanks.

The film has its share of chilling moments that should have been exciting. For a family film, this conflict is too heavy. We have many scenes that come across as unsettling. Like, how about we let the little boy out into space to help get the oxygen tanks from the unfinished space station?! Let’s have him suddenly lose control and fly out into space so Andie can save him! Then let’s have the conflict of hooking up the tank the right way! Then let’s have the final climax in which Kathryn must get the shuttle through the atmosphere without incinerating everyone on board! This is supposed to be a high-powered family adventure, right?

So I’m guessing people didn’t like “SpaceCamp” because it reminded them too much of the risks of being in space rather than being bewildered by the amazing emptiness of it all, not just because of the Challenger accident. While the special effects are impressive and the acting isn’t so bad (Kate Capshaw stops whining for once and Lea Thompson shows a sense of conviction to her role), “SpaceCamp” isn’t as wonderful as we’d like to think a movie about kids going into space would be. Maybe if it was just about a group of juvenile space nuts and their lives at space camp—learning all the technical aspects while also adjusting their social lives—it would be a nice, entertaining movie. As it is, it’s a half-baked adventure.

The Last Airbender (2010)

9 Mar

THE LAST AIRBENDER

Smith’s Verdict: *

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I’ll state right away that I haven’t seen a single episode of the popular animated TV series, aired on Nickelodeon, called “Avatar: The Last Airbender.” So I don’t know the exact details of its story, characters, etc. But I do know that it is held in high regard—it has a cult following and apparently even the most stubborn critics can’t help but like it. So when the fans heard of a theatrical film adaptation of the show, they were hyped. When they heard that it was going to be live-action…they were worried. When newcomers to this story heard that the writer/director was M. Night Shyamalan, we had little to no expectations.

We all know that Shyamalan is a talented filmmaker and has brought us some outstanding achievements (“The Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable,” and “Signs”). But he has really lost his way since then. Projects like “Lady in the Water” and “The Happening” were not promising evidence that Shyamalan was gifted, if we hadn’t seen the other three films. And now here he is adapting a film from this animated TV series. I’m surprised that the Paramount studio entrusted this man with something as apparently delicate.

Like I said, I haven’t seen the original show, so I’m reviewing “The Last Airbender” (the “Avatar” was omitted for obvious reasons) as a movie, like it should be. And the verdict is I hated it. It’s a confusing, uninteresting, jumbled mess that is a huge case of bad writing, bad storytelling, and bad filmmaking. This is not only M. Night Shyamalan’s worst film to date—it’s one of the worst fantasy films I’ve ever seen.

The plot is incomprehensible, though to be fair, I think it’s because I’m not accustomed to watching it develop in episodes on TV. There’s a scroll that tries to explain everything in the very beginning, and most of the dialogue is full of spewing exposition. But I couldn’t tell you what happens in this story or why it happens. I just know that in some distant future (or maybe a parallel dimension), mankind has split into four tribes, each representing an element—earth, air, water, and fire. And there are people in these tribes who can enchantingly manipulate their elements—or “bend” them, as they put it. These tribes are at war with each other, particularly because the Fire-benders are brutally hostile because…whatever. Only one can bring peace to the world—the “Avatar,” who can control all four elements.

The Avatar, named Aang (Noah Ringer), is found by two water-benders—a sister and brother named Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone, the “Twilight” movies). They release him after he’s been buried under the ice for years. But by the time they figure out who he is, they are attacked by the Fire tribe warriors, led by Prince Zuko (Dev Patel) who tries to capture him before Fire Commander Zhao (Aasif Mandvi) claims him for the Fire Lord (Cliff Curtis)…at least I think that’s why this is happening. Oh, and Aang, aided by Katara and Sokka, heads to the lands of different tribes to train and master his own abilities, so he can make himself known as the Avatar.

“The Last Airbender” takes itself way too seriously, to the point where we’re supposed to be familiar with most of the material. But it’s hard to be invested when it’s pretty much just a callback to those fantasy films that tried for the same “complexity” that this one does, and it ends up looking like a joke as a result. (Well hey, not every fantasy film can be “Lord of the Rings” or “Harry Potter”—at least those films knew how to tell their stories.)

The screenplay is horrible. The dialogue is laughably bad and the story developments are inconsequential. It’s like we’re being challenged to follow along with what’s going on in this movie. I wouldn’t mind so much except that it’s so rushed and ends on a note that suggests a sequel, which I would definitely not look forward to seeing. And like I said, most of the dialogue is just awkward exposition—there’s no reason for these characters to explain these details except for informing the audience what’s going on. It’s not informatively helpful; it’s boring.

The special effects range from average to completely unconvincing. Some visual shots are clever, like the water spheres that the Water-benders create, and even a few shots of this “giant water buffalo” (I have no idea what Aang’s humongous pet really is). But mostly, they’re very weak. The fire looks like obvious CGI flames, the twister scenes (in which air is “bended”) are unimpressive, and every battle sequence is unintelligible, making for an uninteresting final-battle climax. Shyamalan’s gifts do not include action scenes.

I’m just glad I didn’t see “The Last Airbender” in 3-D.

But to be fair, the settings are quite extraordinary. It really does look like we’ve entered another world. Look at the icy mountains, the medieval-looking castles, the large-scale ships—the production design deserves credit.

I really don’t like to criticize young actors, but Noah Ringer is totally flat as Aang, and is given unable support by his two co-stars Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone. All three young actors are dull, stiff, and unconvincing. The villains—Cliff Curtis, Aasif Mandvi, and Dev Patel—are slightly better, but here’s the main problem with them. They play it too straight, like they’re leading men in another movie. Dev Patel, in particular, has apparently forgotten that his role is supposed to be hammy, not deadpan serious.

“The Last Airbender” is an unintelligible, badly-made fantasy film. And I find it very hard to believe that Shyamalan, this man formerly known as an influential filmmaker, botched up this adventure that should have been exciting. Maybe he’ll find his way again. I sure hope so.

NOTE: Sometime, I will watch an episode or two of “Avatar: The Last Airbender” and see what all the love is about.

Shiloh (1997)

9 Mar

00318253

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Shiloh” could be seen as a “boy-and-his-dog” story, but it’s actually more than that. This is actually a nicely-done coming-of-age story, based on the novel by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, about a young boy who would like a dog, but must learn life lessons like taking responsibility and growing up in order to prove that he deserves a dog.

It is also a terrific family film. It’s thoughtful, well-crafted, and avoids the types of lame, dumb formulas that most family films of the 1990s (or any decade, for that matter) seemed to think would work as high-quality family entertainment. And when you look at the family-film list for 1997, you notice what a lackluster year it was for the genre, with only very few gems such as “The Education of Little Tree,” “Fairytale: A True Story,” and “Shiloh” (arguably the best family film of ’97). These three family-oriented movies had one major thing in common—they were suitable for all ages, not just for kids. Adults can get as much out of it as children do. A lot of that has to do with quality character development and intelligence brought from the screenwriting.

“Shiloh” is about an eleven-year-old loner boy named Marty (played by Blake Heron), who lives in a small rural community in West Virginia with his family. It’s a lazy summer, and Marty is looking for odd jobs to do around town in order to pay for a bicycle. “Dad says if I want it, I gotta pay for it,” Marty says resentfully. While wandering around his home, he realizes he is followed by a beagle with a cut over its eye, and finds a kind of connection with the dog, even giving it the name of “Shiloh” after the name of the bridge where he found it. But it turns out that “Shiloh” is the new hunting dog of Judd Travers (Scott Wilson), an isolated hunter with an acid attitude. Marty’s dad (Michael Moriarty) has Marty do the right thing and return the dog to Judd, while Marty is reluctant about doing so because he believes Judd has mistreated poor Shiloh.

A few days later, Shiloh runs away again and finds Marty again. This time, Marty decides to keep Shiloh hidden from Judd and a secret from his parents. With help from his friend Samantha (J. Madison Wright), Marty fixes up an old shed nearby for the dog to live, and even sneaks away food for it.

Of course, this can’t be a secret forever, and Marty must figure out what to do about all dilemmas that follow. And “Shiloh” is surprisingly mature about its lessons and themes, and treats its subject matter wisely. This is especially true in the way that there are no easy answers or solutions to the problems presented here; it’s merely morals vs. ethics. Marty’s dad accuses Marty of lying and not doing the right thing, while Marty believes that if he does “do the right thing” and return the dog to Judd, he’ll beat it to near death. In that case, what is the right thing? Marty has already learned to take responsibility while caring for the dog at this point, and now he learns that if he really wants Shiloh, he has to fight for it. Somehow he must bargain with Judd, which is no small task, given how revolting he is.

This leads to what is also successful about “Shiloh”—its character development. Judd Travers, in particular, has his reasons for being nasty. A lot can be said about him in certain lines of dialogue—for example, when Judd finds that Marty has named his dog Shiloh, he chuckles and says, “I don’t name my dogs. When I want ‘em, I whistle. When I don’t want ‘em, I give ‘em a kick.” You can tell right there that Judd may have been treated the same way as a child, and it goes even further when Marty tells him that having a dog is like having a kid, and if you don’t treat it right, it’ll run away. Judd states he never ran away when he wasn’t being treated right—he mentions many welts on his back every now and then in his childhood.

The kid Marty does not have all the answers to everything and must learn as he goes along, making “Shiloh” an effective coming-of-age story about growing up and learning about property, honesty, and accountability. He protects the dog, not caring whose property it is, and lies to his parents, until his mom (Ann Dowd) discovers the secret of Shiloh, and Marty begs for her not to tell Dad because he believes he wouldn’t understand. While the mother doesn’t lie to her husband, she can’t stand to have her son’s heart broken if the dog is given back. She serves as the film’s sympathetic figure that appears the background when needed.

The father is not a one-dimensional overbearing individual. He’s a man of principle, is angry that his son lied to him, and believes that the dog should belong to its rightful owner. But at the same time, he understands Marty’s attachment to Shiloh and tries to find some ways to support him.

Among the characters, there’s also the town doctor (Rod Steiger) and his wife (Bonnie Bartlett), who manage to patch up the dog after it gets into a dogfight (thus revealing Marty’s secret, I forgot to mention) and give Marty some helpful advice about what he could do to keep it.

Everything comes together when Marty strikes a bargain with Judd only to discover, after days of doing manual labor for him, that he’s been stiffed. “All I had was your word,” Marty tells Judd. “Ain’t that worth somethin’ to ya?” Marty has learned his lesson of honesty, now knowing what his father felt like when he found out that he was lied to. And then there’s the main question of whether or not Marty will get the dog, and more importantly, whether or not he truly deserves the dog. And what will Judd ultimately do?

I have to admit; I haven’t seen “Shiloh” in quite a long while. I watched it just recently and wrote the review to see how it holds up. It turns out it really holds up. The themes are more realistically handled than I remember; the writing is very smart; and it’s a most pleasant surprise in the poorly-stated “boy-and-his-dog” film genre (oh, and did I mention this was released the same year as “Air Bud” too?). And of course, give credit to all the actors for giving credible performances. “Shiloh” is a lot better than I remember—it’s a great family film that I won’t forget anytime soon. If you (or your kids) haven’t seen it, do yourself a favor and check it out.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

8 Mar

Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-in-IMAX

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is one of the best in a series of movies that feature action-packed adventures and a hero we can all root for. But there is a whole lot more to it too—it also features a great deal of imagination and a super-fast pace. This isn’t just a movie—it’s an event. We spend two hours having fun watching the main hero go through a series of adventures while also admiring what’s happening around him and then we get to go home. It’s as exciting as any sporting event. Watch it on the big screen, and tell me you’re not excited.

For a hero, we have Dr. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), an archaeologist/college-professor who always gets in way over his head as he goes through dangerous lengths to unearth a hidden historic artifact—he comes complete with bullwhip, Fedora hat, and leather jacket. Oh, and he also has a fear of snakes, but why am I telling you that? In an opening scene set in South America, we see him explore a booby-trapped cave to find a golden idol. The treasure is left out in the open—this seems way too easy. And when Dr. Jones attempts to take it, this sets up a course involving spikes shooting out of the walls, a chasm, a slow-closing door, and the biggest boulder you could imagine. How could he possibly get out of this? The best thing about this movie is that while we know that he is going to get out of every situation he couldn’t possibly get out of, it’s great to see how he does.

That scene is just a curtain-opener for what comes ahead. The main storyline for this movie is that Dr. “Indy” Jones has been hired by the US government to race to Brazil to unearth the lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis gain control of it first (this movie is set in 1936, so the Nazis are the main villains here). Many of us know the legend of the Lost Ark but for those who don’t, its origins are explained early in the film. But it must be noted that if the Ark is opened, the power of God is given to those who open it…for better or worse. Accompanying Indy in finding the Ark’s location is his ex-girlfriend Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), who hasn’t forgiven Indy for walking out on her many years ago but she still loves him anyway. His other ally is Sallah (John Rhys-Davies), a big, gentle man who gives Indy some advice he heard from the leader of the Nazi dig site, who happens to be Indy’s rival. He’s a Frenchman named Belloq (Paul Freeman) who, at the beginning of the movie, took Indy’s treasure, sneeringly stating, “There is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away.”

This sets up an exciting series of adventures, including a trap in near-darkness surrounded by hissing snakes and a chase scene involving a truck, a plane, and a horse. It all comes down to a race against time between Indy and Belloq as they race to retrieve the prize.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is also perfectly paced. In between the frantic action scenes is enough character development and minimum exposition. We get to know Indy and Marion and we fear for their lives. Credit editor Michael Kahn for creating such a fast pace and not making the movie seem out of control in its cuts. The performances are all solid. Harrison Ford, previously known for playing Han Solo in “Star Wars,” creates a different sort of action hero with strength and a taste for adventure as well as everyday man credibility. He’s also a rough scoundrel with a heart of gold. Karen Allen is the perfect ally for Indy. As Marion, Allen doesn’t play the worried girlfriend who is roped into these situations. She plays this character with energy and strength. Sure, she does scream from time to time but she’s definitely not the damsel in distress. She’s a strong, independent woman who can take care of herself most of the time.

There are also memorable small moments in the film, along with the big action sequences we aren’t bored with. Examples are these little moments are Indy’s line to Marion, “It’s not the years, honey, it’s the mileage,” and a very funny brief showdown between Indy and a swordsman. (You’ll know what I’m talking about.) The movie’s spontaneity is also one of the best things in the movie.

There are also plenty of special effects in this movie. The effects at the very end, a terrifying scene in which the Ark’s power is unleashed, are so realistic that they may frighten younger viewers. I am also very impressed at the stuntwork in the film. There is a scene in which Indy is being dragged along the ground behind a truck in a chase scene. I couldn’t tell which was Harrison Ford and which was his stunt double. But this whole scene was done without special effects—it was really happening. Someone really did get dragged along a road by that truck. There may have been pain but I suppose it was worth it to the actors and filmmakers to entertain us.

Oh, and I should also mention the “Raiders March,” the theme music score composed by John Williams, who also composed memorable music from “Jaws,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “Superman,” and “Star Wars.” He scores another notable (excuse the pun) music score here.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is an action movie with all the right ingredients—a smart script, a fast pace, a likable hero, a strong supporting cast of characters, incredible action scenes, a touch of comedy, a hint of romance, and not least of all, sharp direction by director Steven Spielberg and witty storytelling by George Lucas. Spielberg and Lucas have made an excellent piece of work together. I look forward to them making another collaboration.

The Hole (2012)

8 Mar

Joe-Dantes-The-Hole-Now-Scaring-Up-Thrills-in-Theaters-and-on-DVD

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Why Joe Dante’s “The Hole” didn’t get a US theatrical release is totally beyond me. Let’s look at the facts: Joe Dante directed this movie, as well as “Gremlins” and “Small Soldiers,” and I’m sure he still has some mainstream status today. What these movies have in common is the fun way they bring terror with a certain whimsy to what seems like our world. Audiences like that—“Gremlins” was a box-office hit and was also received positively by critics, and “Small Soldiers” did fine too. Are we just supposed to assume that it wouldn’t work again with “The Hole” and that’s why it’s facing difficulty with US distribution?

Also, the film was shot in 3D. Studios are fearless of advertising and releasing “The Nutcracker in 3D” while “The Hole (in 3D)” is left in the shadows? That’s kind of hard to believe. I mean, give props to not releasing “The Hole” as just a 3D gimmick, but now look at this little detail: this movie got a positive reception at the Toronto Film Festival and won the “Best 3D Film” award at 2009’s Venice Film Festival, beating “Up” and “Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D.” What more is there to convince studio executives that…I don’t know, maybe “The Hole” should be released?

Well, someone was convinced and it, in fact, did get a theatrical release…in the UK. D’oh!

OK now that that’s all said, let me review “The Hole.” I didn’t see it in a cinema, and so I didn’t see it in 3D. (It was finally released to DVD in October 2012, after a short-lived limited release in select theaters.) But the 3D is not missed. The truth of the matter is that “The Hole” is a treat—a fun, appealing, and even scary family-horror film. Like most good ones of this genre, younger kids may be scared by a lot of the material on screen, but older ones will most likely be delighted and parents will most likely be entertained as well.

The hole in the title refers to a seemingly bottomless pit in the basement of a suburban house in a small town called Bensonville. The original owner was an old man who is now reclusive, lives in an abandoned factory, and is given the name “Creepy Carl” by all the kids in town. The new owners are a single mother (Teri Polo) and her two sons—seventeen-year-old Dane (Chris Massoglia, “Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant”) and ten-year-old Lucas (Nathan Gamble, “The Mist”)—who move around a lot for a mysterious reason that involves the past (not giving anything away).

Dane is bummed—of course, what teenage boy isn’t bummed about moving into a new house? But there is one good thing about this move: Julie (Haley Bennett), the smokin’-hot next-door neighbor whom Dane has his eye on. But the little smart aleck Lucas humiliates him in front of her, causing Dane to chase him into the basement, where they both find a strange door in the floor with six locks keeping it shut. They open the locks and look in the hole. This hole seemingly has no end to it. The boys drop a bucket of nails into it and never hear them drop. They tie a paint can to fishing line and the whole rod unreels. And then, they tie a doll to a rope and…something inside the hole grabs hold of it. What’s going on here?

As the boys bring Julie in on their discovery, strange things start to happen: They lower a video camera into the hole and a strange eye is seen. Ghosts and monsters come out of the hole to scare the kids. A creepy jester clown puppet comes to life and attacks Lucas.

images

The setup of “The Hole” is fun, as the kids experiment with the “gateway to hell” in the basement. They even meet the so-called “Creepy Carl” (Bruce Dern) in a room with a dozen light bulbs surrounding him, to protect himself from the “darkness.” Later on though, the movie gets more interesting. Without giving away the secret of the hole, it causes the kids to confront their own pasts and conquer their fears. What makes “The Hole” interesting is that it’s more of a coming-of-age tale than a horror film. There are scares, but story and characters come first. There’s a sense of who these kids are and how they’ll grow in their misadventures with the hole.

The three young actors aren’t strangers to strangeness. Chris Massoglia traveled with a freak show as a half-vampire in “Cirque du Freak,” Haley Bennett was the protagonist of a much-lesser horror film called “The Haunting of Molly Hartley,” and Nathan Gamble encountered giant bugs in “The Mist.” All three are appealing here, but it’s Nathan Gamble that really stands out as the irrepressible but likable little brother.

“The Hole” isn’t a great horror film. Some of the choices the kids make are kind of dumb, like Dane and Lucas not telling their mother about the strange happenings. And also, the ending is not the right one—it’s supposed to resolve all that happened before, but it just feels like an anticlimax. But for the most part, “The Hole” is an entertaining movie with an intriguing story and some good scares along with likable characters to root for. And it still makes me wonder what it takes to get this film a US distribution, and how long it ultimately took.

NOTE: The MPAA rated this movie a PG-13 rating. After the PG-rated “Monster House” and “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” the MPAA is starting to understand that certain family-horror movies are likely to frighten younger kids—this one included.

ANOTHER NOTE: Or maybe they just rated it a PG-13 rating due to certain profanities like the “s” word.

THIRD AND FINAL NOTE: Every film directed by Joe Dante features an appearance by Dick Miller. Watch out for him as a pizza delivery guy in this movie.

Hoot (2006)

8 Mar

hoot

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Hoot” is the film adaptation of the Newbery Award winning novel of the same name, written by Carl Hiaasen, and it’s surprisingly faithful to its source material in terms of story and character. You would think that the movie would be just as good as the book in that sense, but I have two problems with that sense. For one thing, there’s just such a mediocrity to the execution of the movie that doesn’t make it seem very special. Also, and I know I might get a lot of flack for typing this, I don’t personally think that the novel itself is special to begin with. I’ll get to analyzing those problems the best I can later in this review, but let me explain the plot first.

A young man named Roy Eberhardt (Logan Lerman) and his family have moved again, this time from Montana to Florida. He already has problems with a husky bully, who has enjoyment in pressing the kid’s face against the school-bus window, but he finds interest in two kids his age. One is a soccer jock named Beatrice (Brie Larson), who is dubbed “Bear,” and a barefoot runaway nicknamed “Mullet Fingers” (Cody Linley) who is also Beatrice’s stepbrother and is constantly vandalizing a construction site, where a pancake-house corporation wants to build their newest restaurant in this small town. Roy decides to help him, along with Beatrice, because the construction site is filled with endangered burrowing owls and it’s up to the kids to save them.

I’m not quite sure where to begin. I mean, the premise is nice and the friendships between Roy and Beatrice and with Roy and Mullet Fingers are developed in an interesting way, both in the novel and film. But there are many quibbles I have with this story. First of all, the construction site is in the middle of the forest—why would anyone want to build a pancake house there? And who would want to go to a pancake house in that particular location?

Also, this family film is promoting a somewhat-environmental message. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to teach a lesson to kids if it’s done right, but the kids in this movie aren’t exactly the right role models for saving the environment. They commit felonies in order to save the day. They steal, vandalize (for example, they spray-paint a police car’s windows black), and even terrorize (with cottonmouth snakes and alligators that Mullet Fingers is able to handle—by the way, Mullet Fingers has been living on his own in the woods long enough, so how far does his animal-handling skills go?). On top of that, they’re not entirely convincing. I seem to be circling back to that Mullet Fingers kid—by the way, he’s called that because he can catch a mullet (a type of fish) with his bare hands. I would like to know exactly how Mullet Fingers survives on his own for what is said to be so long. And if he doesn’t want to be seen, then why does he constantly run on a public sidewalk where plenty of people are able to see him?

Oh yeah, and why is Roy the only one on the school bus who notices Mullet Fingers running by it? Is it because that ridiculous bully isn’t holding anyone else’s face against the window?

Here’s another problem with the story—there are too many side characters for unnecessary subplots. That beefy bully I mentioned is particularly boring and—get this—is afraid of one thing that fortunately Roy (or “Cowgirl” or “Tex” or “Eberhardt” as he’s constantly called every now and again) has on his side: Beatrice. Huh—or maybe he just doesn’t want to hit girls. (Yeah, that sounds about right.) But Roy breaks the bully’s nose after being held in a headlock, only to create an unnecessary subplot that distracts from Roy fitting into his new town and helping his new friends save the owls. Another side character, played by Luke Wilson whom gets top billing in this movie, is police officer David Delinko, a young and loyal cop who is called upon the site to investigate the vandalism reported by the foreman named “Curly” (Tim Blake Nelson). His main role is to be gullible and humiliated while Roy hides his secrets from him, even after he makes friends with him. He’s also the one whose patrol car is spray-painted black by Mullet Fingers while on a stakeout. Why not make this character smarter, or maybe a little funnier to make him more interesting? And then, we have the villain who is just a comic caricature. Chuck Muckle (Clark Gregg), the vice president of the pancake house corporation, knows there are owls and doesn’t care for any of Mullet Fingers’ antics to bulldoze the site. He’s over-the-top here. And of course, we have the dumb parents who know less than their children and their supposed heart-to-heart talks with Roy are pathetic.

What I’m basically getting at is “Hoot” is overstuffed. And Wil Shriner who thinks of this as a feature-length after-school special also executes it poorly with what-probably-isn’t-but-just-seems-like-it lazy direction. And the constant use of bland songs by Jimmy Buffett doesn’t help much either. And the climax has to be one of the most overly cutesy scenes in a recent family film. But to be fair, I believe “Hoot” is harmless enough for younger kids. The kids are actually kind of likeable and the owls are cute enough to be worth fighting for. But if you want a better family film that delivers subtle and more entertaining ways to bring messages across, this isn’t it.

Dazed and Confused (1993)

8 Mar

dazed3

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“If I ever say these are the best years of my life…remind me to kill myself.”

Those are surprisingly revelatory words spoken by high school senior Randy “Pink” Floyd (Jason London) to his stoned friends on their first night after high school. After a night of partying, drinking, smoking joints, and hanging with friends, Pink—a football jock—finds himself hanging with who the school coach dubs the “wrong crowd,” smoking marijuana on the 50-yard line at the school’s football field. He says these words and it’s possibly the one time any of the teenagers in this movie notice that they feel like something is missing.

But that’s not unlike teenagers. We were caught in states of confusion. We ignore them by simply hanging out and talking about other stuff without having to get too serious, just to have a good time. Only occasionally did we acknowledge what problems we had. As time goes by and we get older, we block out the pain and just remember the nostalgia.

This is probably why Richard Linklater, writer and director of “Dazed and Confused,” decided to set this film in the 1970s instead of the 1990s, when it was made. He’s recalling his own nostalgia and it comes through in this film, which is essentially plotless—it’s just chronicling these small-town teens on the night of the last day of school. They hang out. They party. They drink. They smoke marijuana. They talk. That’s it. That’s the movie. It doesn’t matter if the hero gets the girl, the nerd gets his moment, the bully gets his comeuppance, and whatever high-school-movie cliché you can mention. It has truthful elements to it.

Linklater introduces us to one set of characters and we hang around with them as they hang out with each other. Then we move to another set, stay with them. Then another. We get plenty of time to watch them develop, although I have to admit I think there were too many people to keep track of. Most notable are the aforementioned Pink, who is troubled that the coach insists that he sign a paper that keeps him off drugs and alcohol (and away from the “wrong crowd”), and thus invading his independence; Slater (Rory Cochrane), a stoned-out-of-his-mind party animal; Wooderson (Matthew McConaughey), a graduate from years back, still hanging around high school kids because they remind him of his best moments in life (which causes Pink to say the aforementioned quote); and Mitch (Wiley Wiggins), a freshman who is one of many to be harassed by the seniors as a cruel, time-honored initiation tradition (requiring wooden paddles to smack them on the rear), but ends up lingering with Pink and the guys.

“Dazed and Confused” gives us a lot of characters in the mix, although admittedly, only a few of them are likable (Mitch, in particular, is possibly the most identifiable and his tale is engaging, while a lot of the other teenagers grow kind of annoying with their mean-spirited talk). Linklater, however, apparently cares about each of them.

I don’t expect anybody who went to high school in the 1970s to enjoy this film at their next high school reunion. Or maybe they will, as the film does capture the nostalgia of that time as well (the rock-n-roll soundtrack makes perfectly clear of that). I was born in the early ‘90s, went to high school in the late 2000s, and what I got out of this movie was a miniscule but effective legacy of these “cool” high-schoolers.

NOTE: I have to wonder—if the ‘70s looked back on the ‘50s in “American Graffiti,” and the ‘90s looked back on the ‘70s in “Dazed and Confused,” should I expect the 2010s (would that be the ‘10s, the teens) to look back on the ‘90s?

Somewhere in Time (1980)

8 Mar

somewhere_in_time1

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If you can get past the strange concept that allows the possibility of time travel in “Somewhere in Time,” you’d be watching an admittedly cute movie about how one man falls in love…but only 68 years in the past.

Christopher Reeve, the likable star of the “Superman” movies, plays the man, named Richard Collier. He’s a playwright who is celebrating his first play when he’s approached by an elderly woman who hands him a gold pocket watch and simply says, “Come back to me” before leaving. Who is this woman? Richard finds that out eight years later as he stays at the Grand Hotel, after getting over a breakup and while suffering writer’s block. He sees a picture of a beautiful young actress, becomes enthralled, looks up her biography, and finds the latest picture of her, revealing herself to be the woman who gave him the pocket watch, which he still carries around with him.

Richard becomes obsessed with the idea of traveling backward through time, after discovering that the woman has read a book about the subject of time travel. The book was written by one of Richard’s old college professors, so he asks him how he can go back to the year 1912 and see that actress, named Elise McKenna (Jane Seymour).

And so, because this method of self-hypnosis could work for him, and because the movie doesn’t want any past/present misunderstandings, Richard buys an early 20th century suit, cuts his hair for the appropriate time setting, and rids himself of any modern conveniences. He goes to sleep, forcing himself to actually believe he’s no longer in his own time—he’s in the year 1912. It works, and he’s well dressed for the period. Now it’s time to find Elisa and win her affections.

So I guess the idea of this time travel method is that you have to record yourself saying that you’re where you want to be and if you have to keep anything modern out of sight (so you keep the recorder under your bed), or it won’t work. That may sound ridiculous, even confusing (for example, if it’s a dream, then how is there an effect in Richard’s present? Apparently, it’s not a dream, in that case), but getting down to it, it’s more noble than creating a time machine. It’s power of the mind, to say the least.

Eventually, Richard does meet Elisa and they fall in love, as Richard decides to stay in a time not his own just to stay with her. The developing relationship between these two is nicely done, especially considering the possibility that she’s been waiting for him to come along. The chemistry is there between these two actors—Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour—and you root for their characters to be together. Both actors are good. In particular, Christopher Reeve shows more range here than in “Superman,” and he’s still as likable.

There is a villain in this movie—Elisa’s manager William Robinson (Christopher Plummer). He’s been keeping track of Elisa’s career since she was a teenager and keeps her isolated in order to keep her career going. He resents the arrival of Richard from the moment he sees him, believing that he’ll be the one to take her away from stardom to love. What doesn’t work about his character is that there are hints are to whether or not he knew about Richard’s real presence, but are never addressed. He’s either a time lord or a man obsessed with his managing job.

I should also credit the set and costume design by Jean-Pierre Dorleac for creating the feeling that we have indeed traveled back to 1912.

“Somewhere in Time” isn’t a great movie—aside from somewhat confusing time travel elements and a too-mysterious villain, I didn’t buy the ending very well—but it’s intriguing and sweet enough to win me over.

Red Eye (2005)

7 Mar

936full-red-eye-screenshot

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Red Eye” is a psychological thriller that handles such elements of the genre the right way, while also admiring Rachel McAdams. She has turned so well into a movie star and as the Woman in Peril in “Red Eye,” the camera and script never let us stray away from seeing how plausible, convincing, and (let’s face it) beautiful she is. The Woman in Peril is a hard character to pull off in a movie like this. The wrong actress could easily overact to the terror happening to her character. But not Rachel McAdams—she remains convincing all the way through. Her weapons against a terrorist who made her red-eye flight miserable are a pen, a cane, and a hockey stick. Well of course, those are common weapons of choice.

McAdams plays Lisa Reisert, a hotel desk manager who catches a red-eye flight to Florida after bad weather cancels out her regular flight. Taking over her job temporarily at the hotel is her friend, who is not exactly qualified to handle situations that require…well, much thinking. At the bar in the airport, she meets a charming young man named Jack Rippner (get it?) and strikes up a conversation with him. And then they wind up sitting next to each other on the plane.

This sounds like the opening for a romantic drama. But Jack is definitely NOT the charming young man she met at the airport. Once the plane takes off and the two sit together, his personality transforms into something quite sinister. Jack is a terrorist and he tells her (softly) that her father is taken hostage and will be let go when she makes a call to the hotel to schedule a government agent to be booked in a different room than he already was. Then he will be assassinated. Lisa tries to find a way out of this nasty situation and goes through many threatening confrontations and conversations. It’s almost a wonder why these go unnoticed by the stewardesses, but then again this is a busy flight. The airplane scenes are handled in a plausible way.

Cillian Murphy plays Jack. He’s handsome, but his looks come with a warning. The way he handles Lisa in many moments in which she tries sneakily to get out of this situation is so sinister, it too is convincing. Cillian Murphy does a good job of switching tones in his personality. First he’s pleasant and polite. Then he’s…how many times do I have to use the word “sinister?” You get the point, I hope.

Now the final half of the film is your standard killer-in-the-house climax. I would’ve wanted something a bit more original. Who knows what you could do in an airport terminal? But still, McAdams remains plausible and convincing. I loved that her character was not dumb but a woman who is bright and thinks of what she would do; we feel for her. She has presence and credibility—she’s not one of those thriller victims are simply running around and screaming. She’s given something very specific to do and her scenes with Murphy are very effective. These two are great together.

Craven’s previous work included slasher films such as “Nightmare on Elm Street” and the “Scream” movies. Here, he gives us as little blood as possible and moves on to psychological tensions. The final half of the film may be a bit too conventional but for the most part of “Red Eye,” he succeeds in making a psychological thriller that works.

Unbreakable (2000)

7 Mar

unbreakable2nightchronicles

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When you hear about writer-director M. Night Shyamalan’s follow-up to his masterpiece, the 1999 supernatural thriller “The Sixth Sense,” you either expect very much or very little. It’s that feeling you get when you watch the trailer of “Unbreakable” and you notice the writer-director’s name, as well as the somewhat similar tone that “Sixth Sense” had, what you can gather from the trailer. Oh yeah, and Bruce Willis is in both movies.

That said, I think “Unbreakable” is a wonderful movie. It’s eerie, original, and well put together.

It has that same uneasy feeling that was brought to life for the best in “The Sixth Sense.” Only this time, it isn’t a spin on the ghost story, but on the superhero origin story. The whole movie is scripted like the first half of a superhero movie and shot like a haunting portrait. Comic books featuring superheroes take on a major element of “Unbreakable,” but this is not a comic book movie. Far from it.

It begins as a security guard named David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is the sole survivor of a train derailment. Not only that, but he walks away from the crash completely unharmed, without breaking one bone in his body. This attracts the attention of comic book collector Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), whose life has been nothing but misfortune. He was born with a disease that makes his bones extremely fragile and easily breakable. As a child, his classmates dubbed him “Mr. Glass”, because his bones “broke like glass.” His mother got him hooked on comic books as a child to keep him from sadness, and he has been studying them ever since.

Anyway, Elijah contacts David and tells him a theory that may or may not be possible. From studying comic books, he has a theory that if there is a man such as him, whose bones can break easily, then there should be a man who is in the exact opposite way of living—an unbreakable, invincible man.

At first, David dismisses Elijah’s theory as just a crazy idea. But soon, he begins to ask some questions about himself. He asks his boss if he’s ever taken a sick day from work, and he asks his wife Audrey (Robin Wright Penn) if he’s been sick in the entire time they’ve been married. (There was a nearly fatal accident he and Audrey have been in years ago, but even that has its secrets.) David’s son Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark) believes that Elijah is right and that his dad is some kind of superhero. He even goes to an extreme measure of attempting to shoot David with a pistol to prove to him that Elijah is right.

There’s a real amount of tension throughout “Unbreakable” that also comes when Audrey, a therapist, has Elijah for a patient and doesn’t know that he and David have already been in contact. There are many moments like that that just feel like there’s something eerie going on, but you’re not quite sure as to exactly what.

There are many touches that Shyamalan puts throughout the film. One is the use of glass around Elijah—you see him in a reflection off a TV or a glass case, and his own cane is made of glass. Then, there’s the constant use of lingering shots that just continue at their own pace—they’re well-directed, well-acted, and they take their time to continue. Another is the choice of clothing that these characters wear. I should explain what I mean by that, but I fear I might be spoiling something.

One could watch “Unbreakable” and appreciate what Shyamalan has done this time. It may not be up there with “Sixth Sense,” but what follow-up usually is? Then, one could watch the film more than once and piece the puzzle together after experiencing the twist ending the first time, as they did with “Sixth Sense.” Yes, there is a twist ending here, as there was in “Sixth Sense.” It features Elijah’s further characteristics, and I won’t give anything else about it away, but I will say this—When I watched it for the first time, I didn’t accept it because I couldn’t believe it. But I watched the whole film again and let everything piece together in my mind. What I realized is how tragic Elijah’s story is. It’s intriguing, the way that destiny could be either a good or bad thing, depending on how you look at it. That’s all I’ll say about the ending.

What “Unbreakable” might be missing, and I think this is what cost the film half-a-star from me, is a more confident, heartfelt relationship between David and his son. There isn’t that much of a sense of connection that we’re supposed to feel for these two. Actually, there’s some sense, but not enough. But what really makes “Unbreakable” stand out are the creative ideas put into the story, the consistent dark tone that comes with this type of storyline, and two great performances from Willis as the everyman and Jackson as the mysterious tragedy-personified.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →