Archive | March, 2013

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

7 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Two years ago, when a friend told me that he heard that the “Spider-Man” movie franchise was being “rebooted,” I didn’t believe him. But two years later, here it is—ten years since the original film, and five years since its latest film. I was aware that 2007’s “Spider-Man 3” failed to satisfy audiences with its many plot developments, but I had a feeling that the franchise would redeem itself with a fourth entry. But no—Columbia Pictures apparently wants to start from scratch, even with the same producer of the other films (Laura Ziskin).

Luckily, I was pleasantly surprised by this reboot of the Marvel Comics-based half-arachnid/half-human superhero. We all knew the origin story of Spider-Man/Peter Parker, but that doesn’t mean the story isn’t told as effectively as before. There are many twists and turns in the storytelling of this retelling of Spider-Man, all executed wonderfully.

My guess is that they made this reboot was because they didn’t know where to take the story from “Spider-Man 3” to a “Spider-Man 4.” But I am disappointed that they didn’t at least try—even Paramount’s “Star Trek” movies have gotten their way out of similar messes. So they better get it right this time with the inevitable sequels.

“The Amazing Spider-Man,” of course, retells the story of how high school geek Peter Parker became Spider-Man, but with different circumstances from the original film. (And no, I’m not going to go into great detail to explain the comparisons and contrasts.) It begins with Peter as a little boy playing an innocent game of hide-and-seek when he enters his scientist father’s office and discovers that it’s been ransacked. The parents, hoping for the best for their son, send Peter to live with his aunt and uncle (for reasons that will probably be explained in the sequel, but I’ll let it ride). Years later, Peter (Andrew Garfield) is seventeen, gawky, and somewhat of a loner (pretty much the last person you’d expect to become a superhero).

Peter finds an old satchel belonging to his late father and can’t help but go through it. He finds documents containing specific information about his cross-species-intersection experiment with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who works as Oscorp Industries. Peter makes his way into the building to find out the real deal, when he is bitten by one of the experimental, radioactive spiders in Connors’ laboratory. On the way home, he experiences some intense side effects from the bite—he’s completely hyperactive (I suppose you’d call it “spider-like reflexes”), is unbelievably strong, and can even scale ceilings and walls.

These scenes in which Peter learns of his new abilities are well-handled and make for some comedic moments as well. He at first finds these powers difficult to control (he nearly destroys his own bathroom while trying to brush his teeth, he shoots a dangerous projectile of toothpaste, and also breaks the door). He does get the hang of his abilities by taking it slowly and easily, but he uses them irresponsibly, as when he humiliates the school bully on the basketball court. This causes his fatherly uncle Ben (Martin Sheen, very strong here) to tell him that just because he can do these things doesn’t mean he can perform them whenever he wants to.

Later, Uncle Ben is killed by a street thug and Peter realizes that he could use his powers to help people in need. So he dons a costume he made himself, creates man-made spider-web-slingers that cause him to swing around New York, and becomes a masked half-arachnid vigilante called Spider-Man. He protects people in need, keeps his true identity a secret, and of course the police see him as a menace.

But with every superhero, there must always be a villain for each tale. Origin stories are no exception. While most are coincided with the hero’s newly-developed powers, Peter is actually the cause of the supervillain in this movie. You see, earlier in the movie, he gave Dr. Connors his father’s secret algorithm that could make Connors’ cross-species project work. What it’s supposed to do is regrow lost limbs (three-legged mice are used as experiments). Thanks to the equation that Peter gave Connors, the experiment finally works. But later in the movie, Connors decides to use it on himself to regrow his disembodied right arm. And because some of the serum comes from lizard blood (if I remember correctly), Connors mutates into a man-size lizard that terrorizes the city.

Connors makes an intriguing villain and his plan is legitimately diabolical. His plan is to take the serum and take it to the top of the tower of Oscorp and unleash it all over the city, via a chemical cloud, so they undergo the same effects as he. He says he’s doing this to get rid of “weakness.” Connors is an interesting villain because he doesn’t do this just to be anarchic and chaotic. He’s doing it for what he thinks is for the good of mankind. (Though, let’s face it—none of us want to be transformed into giant lizards, of course.) This is a scientist who searches for further truth in his research and gets more than he bargained for. He becomes a monstrous beast as it all just toys with his own sanity. Rhys Ifans does a terrific job at making a three-dimensional villain, and the computer-effects design of his lizard form is gruesomely impressive as well.

The effects are first-rate. Sure, most of it is CGI, but it really did look like Spider-Man was flying around the city on those spider webs. And they, along with the camerawork, make the action sequences effectively intense and a lot of fun to watch. I can think of many final action climaxes where I feel worn out, just waiting for them to end. But there were enough turns in this film’s climax to keep me invested.

And I should also mention the change of tone this movie has, compared to the other three “Spider-Man” movies. The previous three were lighthearted, energetic romps. In this reboot, the attitude is suitably more dark and dramatic with a smoother look, although that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for comic relief (such as how Spider-Man, in a teenage boy fashion, mocks a car thief while thwarting him). Also, I have to give credit to the screenwriters (including Steve Kloves, who wrote all but one of the Harry Potter movies) for giving better reasons for Peter to become Spider-Man.

Andrew Garfield has been in movies like “The Social Network,” “Never Let Me Go,” and “Red Riding: 1974.” I can say that this actor can either be very likeable or very stiff. In some of his work, he seems to walk that line in between, seeming uncertain about a few things his characters go through. But as Peter, he’s pretty good here. He’s very convincing and just so likeable, and makes for a nice hero to root for. But I have to admit, the updated Spider-Man costume looks a little silly…or sillier.

And don’t think I forgot about Peter’s relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the pretty girl in the class. Every superhero story, as far as I’m concerned, has a girlfriend to support the hero, and “The Amazing Spider-Man” is no exception. Now, I have to admit that I didn’t really care much for Gwen in the first half of the story, nor was I interested in hers and Peter’s relationship. It was pretty awkward and they didn’t share much chemistry, mainly because Gwen wasn’t given much of a personality…until midway through the movie, when these two started to have realistic conversations and I actually started to care. Or maybe things just get more complicated when the police chief (Denis Leary, very good), seeking to arrest Spider-Man (who is actually Peter), is Gwen’s father.

And here’s what really made me care about Gwen—she’s smart. She’s not the typical damsel-in-distress you see in most superhero movies; she’s no Mary Jane Watson (from the original film). And there are many scenes that show that she is smart and can fend for herself. For example, there’s one scene in which she’s hiding from the Lizard in a locker in a laboratory, and you would think this would be predictable. You would think that she would be captured and Spider-Man would have to save her. But nope. She fights back; she sets the monstrosity on fire!

“The Amazing Spider-Man” is a welcome retelling of the Spider-Man origin story—darker, more complex, entertaining, and very amusing when it needs to be. I’d even put this is in a class with “Batman Begins” (which told Batman’s origin story) and that’s a very high class for me indeed. I loved this movie, and I look forward to its predestined sequel.

Christine (1983)

7 Mar

tumblr_krjgmxnI2G1qz72v7o1_500

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

John Carpenter’s “Christine” is a nicely-crafted horror film about a teenage boy and his car. The boy is a high school nerd named Arnie who wears thick glasses, is very insecure, and is constantly picked on by the school thugs. The car is a ‘50s Plymouth dubbed “Christine” that Arnie finds rusting in a junkyard. He doesn’t care that its original owner killed himself in the car or that some folks around it have died tragically back in the day—he’s just entranced by the car. He buys it, rebuilds it, and develops a certain bond with it.

Of course, teenagers develop a bond with their first car. It becomes a part of them—they look out for their cars, they make sure not one part of it is scratched, and they even talk to their cars at times. But in Arnie’s case, it’s different. Not only does having this new car affect his social life (in that he actually develops one, finally) and boost his self-esteem (like talking back to people, including his overbearing parents), but it also turns out that Christine—the car—has a mind of its own. It moves on its own and even repairs itself after the bullies trash it to junk.

And so, Christine uses its willpower, without a driver, to chase after Arnie’s enemies and run them down—there’s a great scene in which it forces its way through a narrow alley to get to one of the bullies, and another in which another bully is desperately running down the street trying to outrun the car (set ablaze this time—the guy doesn’t have a prayer). But there’s a bigger issue in its “mind,” I should say—Arnie is dating the prettiest girl in school, which makes Christine so jealous that it takes many measures to try and run her down as well. Arnie himself develops into a real scuzzy personality, letting Christine’s power over him take what’s left of his meekness and replace it with a blend of super-coolness and madness.

It’s a nice work of fantasy and horror—the idea of a guy getting his first car that turns out to be alive is an exciting one. That it goes after its owner’s girlfriend may make the movie sound ridiculous, and it is. But I enjoyed it because with John Carpenter’s direction, the movie wants to play how it would occur if it were plausible. Carpenter also does a good job with the three central young actors—Keith Gordon as Arnie, Alexandra Paul as Arnie’s girlfriend, and John Stockwell as Arnie’s best friend, a likable jock that tries to pull Arnie out of Christine’s spell.

I also liked the use of old songs in the score. When someone tries to break into the garage where Christine is kept, its radio plays “Keep-a Knockin’ But You Can’t Come In” as a warning. And whenever Arnie is alone in the car, the radio plays old love songs. See, the radio only plays songs from the 1950s, since that’s when it was created and uses these songs to speak its mind. That’s a clever idea.

“Christine” is an ambitious, well-acted, well-executed horror movie that takes teenage fantasy as a deal with the devil. Yeah, the story is out there, and there are some things that don’t work (see NOTE), but there are many other moments that had me grinning and invested, right down to the final climax where it’s the ‘50s Plymouth Fury “Christine” versus a bulldozer.

NOTE: I’ve read a few posts on “Christine’s” IMDb message board and one of which, not caring much for the movie, said that there could be a remake that was closer to the original Stephen King novel it was based on. I’ve never read the novel, so I don’t know how close this movie adapts it. However, there are certain clichés that can be found in Stephen King stories and they are found here. One main clichéd element—everyone except for the main characters is a one-dimensional jackass. The bullies are the knife-wielding bores, the parents don’t listen (the mother, in particular, is over the top in authority), and the man who runs the body shop (played by Robert Prosky) is a suspicious old fart (though to his credit, he has a good reason to be suspicious of Arnie and his car). So I don’t know—maybe certain parts of the story were left out of the movie.

Spaceballs (1987)

7 Mar

MV5BOTg2OTg3OTYwMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjc0MjI3NA@@._V1._SX640_SY430_

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Spaceballs” is a comedy by Mel Brooks which has a lot of jokes that are hit-and-miss, but also has just about the same amount of jokes that are hits in the way that I laughed. This is not one of Mel Brooks’ best films—it doesn’t rank up there with “Young Frankenstein.” Or rather, it’s not one of Mel Brooks’ best scripts. There are so many lame puns and juvenile humor. What had me laughing, however, were the visual gags and the behavior of some of the characters, especially the villains. So there are enough funny moments in “Spaceballs” that I’m giving it a mild recommendation.

The whole movie is a parody of the “Star Wars” movies. We have almost everything from the famous George Lucas saga spoofed here. We have Luke Skywalker/Han Solo type Lone Starr, the beautiful but stuck-up Princess Druidia (a “Druish” princess), a droid named Dot Matrix (oh yeah, and voiced by Joan Rivers), a half-man/half-dog Chewbacca replacement named Barf (“I’m my own best friend”), the short wise alien named Yogurt, and of course, the villain Dark Helmet. There are other characters, but I’ll get to them later.

The film begins with those “Star Wars” opening texts that scroll into space, explaining the back story of “Spaceballs” and ending with a fade-in saying, “If you can read this, you don’t need glasses.” That’s funny. But—and maybe I missed something here—there’s a long, tedious shot of the villain’s spaceship that goes on for a minute and a half and doesn’t seem to show anything…well, funny. But then we’re introduced to the villain Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis), who has a large dark helmet that brings his voice to a James Earl Jones baritone type. How do we know it’s Rick Moranis, though? Because Dark Helmet can’t keep the helmet on all the time (he can’t breathe, he can’t see straight, he has to drink a cappuccino, you name it). And he’s a nerd. One of the joys about “Spaceballs” is that Dark Helmet, his second-in-command Sandurz (George Wyner), and President Skroob of Spaceball City (Mel Brooks)—the three villains of the movie—are so dumb, you can’t believe that they’d lead any army. It’s very funny when they plan any evil plot in this movie.

The heroes are the rebellious Lone Starr (a very bland Bill Pullman) and his partner Barf (a very likable John Candy), who as I said is half-man/half-dog (with paws and a tail). They fly through outer space into a flighty Winnebago (nice visual gag) on the run from Pizza the Hutt, a Jabba the Hutt type except he’s a mountain of cheese and pepperoni. Pizza the Hutt is just as disgusting as Jabba the Hutt, but also the funniest gag in the whole movie.

Lone Starr and Barf are called upon by King Roland of Planet Druidia, which is in danger of being destroyed by the Spaceballs of Planet Spaceball—run by President Skroob (Dark Helmet is in charge of the spaceship Spaceball One). King Roland (Dick van Patten) needs the heroes to rescue Princess Vespa (Daphne Zuniga, “The Sure Thing”) and Dot Matrix from capture by Dark Helmet. They succeed, but find themselves lost on a desert planet, where Lone Starr and Princess Vespa argue as Barf and Dot Matrix look on and spew one-liners, and they meet a Yoda type named Yogurt (also played by Mel Brooks) who gives Lone Starr a special ring and gives them the phrase, “May the Schwartz be with you.” This constant repeating of the phrase is so hoping for memorable payoff that it isn’t funny.

As I said, “Spaceballs” has many jokes that are hit-and-miss. The script has a lot of puns and juvenile humor (there’s a difference here). But there are other jokes that do work in the way that I laughed joyfully and recommending the movie. I loved the Pizza the Hutt gag, I liked John Candy and Rick Moranis, Mel Brooks gives two wacky performances, I liked the gag where the villains  try to watch the movie itself to find the heroes, I liked the satire on stunt doubles, and uh…I think there are a couple more if I can think of them.

The Omen (1976)

6 Mar

500full

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Omen” is thought of as one of the best horror films ever made and it does have quite a few chilling moments, as well as an unsettling story idea. It imagines the arrival of the Antichrist. Read the Bible and you’ll know about the notion that someday, as the spawn of Satan, the Antichrist will rise to power and bring about the End Times. “The Omen” doesn’t tell that story. It tells the story of a married couple who learn that their adopted child is the Antichrist.

The couple—U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck), and his wife Katherine (Lee Remick)—has lost a child shortly after birth. They substitute it for an orphan baby whose mother died the same night. They name the child Damien and raise him as their own. But around the time of Damien’s fifth birthday, mysterious things start to happen. At his birthday party, the boy’s nanny hangs herself (while smiling and saying, “It’s all for you,” if you can believe it). When his parents bring him to church for the first time, he screams and acts violently before they take him inside. Baboons attack the boy and Katherine while they’re inside their car, at the zoo. Many people die around Damien, including a priest who has warned Robert that something is not right with Damien. And a big, snarling black dog hangs around the house, and is eventually brought to stay inside by the new governess Mrs. Baylock (Billie Whitelaw), who while the parents aren’t around comforts Damien by saying she’s here to protect him. Damien is responsible for an incident that causes pregnant Katherine to have a miscarriage. And more.

Photographer Keith Jennings (David Warner) starts investigating these events after noticing a few strange things about the pictures he took of the people who died. These pictures somehow predicted how they died and Robert and Katherine could be next, as well as himself. With Katherine in the hospital, Keith lets Robert in on the discovery and they are led on a series of discoveries, each of them furthering the conclusion that little Damien is indeed evil incarnate.

“The Omen” could technically also be called “Omens,” since there is more than one clear sign in plain sight throughout this movie—the obvious early stage of the Antichrist’s human form, the pictures that predict many deaths to come, and the further looking-into of the biblical prophecy, with a comet returning, the Jews coming back to Zion, and what about the Roman Empire? “That would be the European Common Market,” Robert realizes. Oh, and there’s also the number 666 that is Damien’s birthmark, as well as the infamous Number of the Beast. And of course, since Robert is a powerful man and has connections with the President, Damien could undoubtedly follow through. We can see in the end of the movie that there’s no escaping this prophecy.

Just imagine if your kid was Damien and you knew that he will grow up to do all of these horrible things once he comes into power over the country and even the world. What would you do in that situation? What would you feel? If you knew you had to kill your own child so that it doesn’t happen, would you? That’s a pretty heavy subject, and “The Omen” uses its final act to play with that idea. It’s always a chilling idea when characters get the notion to act out certain deeds now because of what they’re afraid will happen later, but this time there’s actually a legitimate. fearful reason.

I mentioned that “The Omen” does have its creepy parts. Here are a few in particular—the dog is very intimidating, the scene in which the first nanny commits suicide is unnervingly calm, the gruesome deaths are suitably horrific, the cemetery that Robert and Keith explore to find more answers is atmospherically creepy, and Billie Whitelaw, as Mrs. Baylock, brings a great sense of unease to her performance as Damien’s personal bodyguard. And the music! The sinister, choral “Ave Satani” theme, composed by Jerry Goldsmith, is one of the most unsettling movie music scores I’ve ever heard.

Aside from Whitelaw and David Warner who does a good job at mixing curiosity with fear, the acting is pretty much a blank slate. I’m sorry to criticize Gregory Peck’s leading performance, as he is such a powerful actor. But the truth is, as Robert, he’s flat, unconvincing, and probably bored—he always looks like he’d rather be somewhere else. Lee Remick doesn’t have much to show for her role, except for a few legitimate reaction shots. And the kid Harvey Stephens…well, I’ll let him slide because he is a kid and hey, at least he sells that “devilish” blank stare.

“The Omen” is a chilling, atmospheric horror movie that uses the biblical prophecy and insane ideas for some well-executed frightening moments.

The Strangers (2008)

6 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

1996’s “Scream” pointed out that horror movies featuring psychotic killers are much scarier when no motives are declared for their atrocious deeds. That may be true, but maybe a simpler motive than you’d expect has a creepier element to it. And here we have “The Strangers,” which features masked killers who invade a couple’s home and terrorize them. Why do they do this? “Because you were home.”

That’s it. That line hits a strong note because even in a horror film such as this, being at home won’t help you at all. You think you’re safe and alone, but you’re not. That is a very chilling thought. There are times when I’m home alone and I hear some noise outside and I don’t feel like I’m safe. It could just be a raccoon or something, but it could be someone trying to get in.

“The Strangers” is a chilling horror film about such a home invasion. It’s the debut feature of Bryan Bertino, who pulls out all the stops to create something tense and disturbing. The plot isn’t new, but Bertino’s cinematography makes for great production value and helps make “The Strangers” into something less than a geek show with a lot of blood and gore. There is more terror and suspense here than anything else, keeping the audience on edge throughout the film’s brisk 85-minute running time.

The film takes place in a cabin in the woods as Kristen (Liv Tyler) and James (Scott Speedman) arrive in the middle of the night after a wedding reception. James has proposed to Kristen, who has turned him down. So things are uncomfortable and uneasy for the two of them, and they awkwardly try to keep conversation to keep the night from being too unpleasant for both of them. But before they get a chance to make amends, there’s a knock at the door. It seems strange and they shrug it off, but before long, they realize that there are three people in masks who harass them and make their night miserable. With no one around to help and nowhere to run, Kristen and James find themselves fighting for their lives alone in this house.

“The Strangers” produces a great deal of chilling scenes. The most effective are the ones without music. Why? Because we don’t need it. Take a look at the scene in which you see a figure in the background as Kristen walks forward, not noticing. You don’t need a sharp music cue to show that the figure is there and that he or she means death. The audience will scream because it’s out of the ordinary. Sound effects also play a good part in the film, whether it’s banging on a door, record repetitions, shotgun blasts, etc. But it’s the cinematography that must be praised. It allows us to see things that shouldn’t be there and we’re surprised to see (like that scene I mentioned before), and it always shows purpose with each shot.

Something else I should bring up about the creepiness factor—those masks the killers wear are very freaky. They’re mostly blank white faces (hello, Michael Myers) that are enough to terrify and shock.

The characters—these two people played by Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman—are always engaging. I liked them and I hoped they would make it out of this scary situation alive. Sure, they make mistakes, but they are bright enough to know their limitations even though they come to them a little later than they expected. My favorite moment is when they find a shotgun and Speedman confesses he doesn’t know how to use it. “I’m not sure I even know how to load it.” “But I thought you said you went hunting with your dad.” “That…was just something I said.” And then, without giving anything away, when Speedman does something terrible by accident, I really felt bad for him.

I have to admit when “The Strangers” opened with a disclaimer saying it was inspired by true events, I rolled my eyes in disbelief. First of all, we know that’s not true and this isn’t “Fargo.” Second of all, don’t have someone read what we can. If Bertino (or whoever made this decision) is concerned about blind people seeing the movie, here’s a newsflash for you—most of the movie is silent anyway! Third of all, don’t start the disclaimer saying it was based on a true story and then end it with stating that the “brutal events that took place are still entirely known!” Are you trying to create controversy?

But then once “The Strangers” kicked in with the story, I got into it. It was chilling, disturbing, well-made, and very effective.

Poltergeist (1982)

6 Mar

poltergeist_remake

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Steven Spielberg had this to say about “E.T.,” which he directed, and “Poltergeist,” which he produced (both were released within the same year): “If ‘E.T.’ was a whisper, ‘Poltergeist’ was a scream.” Right you are, sir. While “E.T.” is a sensational family entertainment, “Poltergeist” is a scarefest that will most likely cause nightmares for any child under the age of ten. This is a movie in which almost every special effect Industrial Lights and Magic could create for two movies is squeezed into this one movie. We get killer trees, glowing ghosts, goo oozing from a doorknob, a portal appears in a closet, and more. All of these strange and scary events take place in a house inhabited by a family of five…and something else. This house is in suburbia, where every house looks the same. One of the reasons “Poltergeist” works as an effective thriller is having the horror occur in this typical, comfortable home is effective enough.

One of the best things about “Poltergeist” is that everything is seen through the eyes of the family that lives in the house. We don’t fully understand why these strange events occur and why these spirits are here. But neither do the family. We get a nice couple (Craig T. Nelson and Jobeth Williams) and their three kids. The youngest child of the family—a little girl named Carol Anne (Heather O’Rourke)—is the first to notice that something strange is happening. In the opening scene, she walks down the stairs and over to the TV just to say “hello.” She then tells her family, who are standing by and watching, that “they’re here.”

Who’s here? “The TV people.” How does she know they’re here? Um…

It seems like there are spirits living on a blank TV channel and they really are there too. They use parlor tricks to get their attention first. They stack chairs and propel little Carol Anne from one side of a room to the other. But soon, things get really dangerous and the spirits kidnap that little girl and take her to their realm. The doorway to their world is in her closet. So the couple need outside help to get their daughter back.

This is where even stranger events happen. A tree comes to life and tries to eat the middle child. A young doctor hallucinates himself tearing the skin off his face. Ghosts walk down the stairs. A clown doll tries to strangle one of the kids. A swimming pool has a life of its own. If there’s one explanation as to why this is all happening, it’s that the same villains in “Poltergeist” are the same villains in “Jaws.” They’re the town authorities. Instead of telling people it’s safe to go back in the water again, this time they’re telling people it’s OK to build houses on top of a cemetery.

All of this gains our attention because “Poltergeist” works as an effective thriller and as a scary thrill ride. The cast does well and the special effects are indeed special. Steven Spielberg is an executive producer for this movie and I should also mention that the director of “Poltergeist” also directed “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.” What a good team. Spielberg works with effectiveness along with his special effects and Hooper specializes in realistic violence. But strangely enough, the movie is rated PG and it is definitely not for younger kids. Also strange is that for a horror film, nobody is killed or brutally hurt (the flesh-ripping is just a hallucination). But that’s not a criticism. “Poltergeist” is a little ridiculous but its reason for being is to scare us and make fear for this family. And it works at doing that. This is the haunted-house movie that “The Amityville Horror” wanted to be.

Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)

6 Mar

jonprice

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

For every life, there lives a desire. For every desire, there is a wish. For every wish, there is a price. That saying alone will let you know what you’re in for when you watch “Something Wicked This Way Comes,” a supernatural thriller that tells a story so compelling you can’t believe the Disney Studios would make a movie as frightening. Maybe they hope the two 12-year-old characters will lighten the mood. But the problem is, terrible events happen to these two kids—spiders surround them, an entire parade searches for them (with kid-sized coffins), and they become involved in a plot to grant people their dreams but take away their lives. This may frighten younger viewers but will probably delight older ones, especially adults because of the darker theme involving one of the kids’ fathers.

The film, based on a novel by Ray Bradbury, begins with a great shot of a train coming towards the camera in the dark. That shot alone tells us that we’re in for something that I don’t think the Disney Studios would want to make again. It lets us know that this is no family film. The film takes place in a small Midwestern town where the two boys—timid, sensitive Will (Vidal Peterson) and the more-outgoing Jim (Shawn Carson)—live. There are many other people in the town, including a cigar store owner who dreams of being rich, a barber who dreams of a thousand gorgeous woman coming to town and being with him, a one-armed, one-legged barman who dreams of playing football, and an old crone who dreams of being beautiful again. Then there’s Will’s father Charles (Jason Robards), who only dreams of being much younger. Will doesn’t particularly like living with an old father. Charles is unsure he can even live with himself.

The mysterious Darks Pandemonium Carnival comes to town and all of these characters (except Charles) arrive. The cigar store owner, the barber, the barman, and the old crone are fortunate enough to meet the Dust Witch (Pam Grier), who knows their dreams and tells their fortunes. It seems that the carnival’s biggest attraction is temptation and these people may be falling into a trap as they are tempted by the Dust Witch to give up something for their dreams come true. They get what they’ve been wishing for but there is a price that must be given—for example, the old crone becomes beautiful but she loses her eyesight. Then, I guess, they become slaves to the force that surrounds the carnival.

Only young Will and Jim realize that something creepy is happening. They run afoul of Mr. Dark (Jonathan Pryce), the tall, mysterious carnival owner who seems to be the ruler of this strange force. He has plenty of tricks up his sleeve and many carnival attractions that are interesting with special effects—including a merry-go-round that can spin backwards through time. He seems to will the ways of the devil, in the way that he can tempt people and then feed on their souls. When Mr. Dark declares that the boys have seen too much, he sends his forces of darkness after them.

It all comes down to the ending in which Charles is finally falling into Mr. Dark’s trap and he must fight it in order to save himself and the boys. Mr. Dark knows Charles’ wish and would make it come true and the temptation is too strong…

“Something Wicked this Way Comes” is a powerful horror film with the right mood of the original novel (although loosely based on the novel) and great performances, especially from Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce. The young actors are just OK (sometimes, they seem to be a bit too precocious to the point of annoyance). There are some parts where the boys seem older, especially in the scene where they’re surrounded by hundreds of spiders—probably because of post-production reshoots. But it’s really Jason Robards that steals the show. He’s got that amazing voice that makes you want to listen to him and believe in him. Also, I love how the carnival’s being isn’t fully explained—there are some tidbits of explanation but not enough so that there’s exposition. Actually, I’d rather not know. Then there are the heartfelt conversations Charles and Will have in the middle of the night occasionally, which feel very real. That relationship between father and son pays off well.

There are times when it seems like the movie doesn’t know which way to go, especially in the final half, but this is a most unsettling movie with a terrifying atmosphere and a grim feel. It’s unlikely that the Disney Studios would want to make a movie like this again—this is not for younger children. If they see this movie, there’s a good chance they’ll have nightmares for quite a while.

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)

6 Mar

friday-the-13th-the-final-chapter-2

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter” couldn’t have been a good movie. It suffers from being the fourth movie in a deplorable slasher-film franchise that only had teenagers getting picked off one by one by a killer with no personality. This is just like any other horrible movie with that same premise and somehow, four of these films share the same name and the same killer. I never understood what made the original “Friday the 13th” so special that it needed a series of sequels to go along after it. And it gets worse—this is not the final chapter. The ending is an open door for another sequel.

The killer Jason, who sports a hockey goalie mask now, is just a big guy with no personality and apparently no inner being—oh, and he has a knife, too. Actually, the thought of a killer with no inner thoughts is kind of scary, but after two films, it’s tiresome and not scary anymore. Just like in the previous films, it’s easy to know who’s going to die in “Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter.” This is a rule for slasher movies such as this—whenever a movie lingers on someone who isn’t a main character, that person is going to be killed. What’s tedious about the gimmick is how it lingers on that character before the killer finally attacks.

The slasher scenes are there just to be slasher scenes. The most unpleasant murder occurs after the teenagers in this movie pass by a female hitchhiker. The scene stays with that female hitchhiker right to Jason’s arrival and victimizing of that poor woman. Why was this necessary? Who was this woman? We’ll never know.

“Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter” does try to develop characters this time. We have the usual gang of teenagers that will undoubtedly become stalked by Jason, for no reason whatsoever. Only this time, they’re angst-ridden and that at least counts for something, which is more than I can say for a lot of the teenagers in the previous “Friday the 13th” films. But the real protagonist is more interesting—he’s a twelve-year-old horror film buff named Tommy Jarvis (Corey Feldman), who lives with his mother and older sister (Kimberly Beck—no bets on whether or not she’ll be the obligatory “final girl” who ends up fighting Jason) near that stupid Crystal Lake, where all those murders occurred in the previous films. Having a twelve-year-old kid around is strange enough for a slasher film.

(By the way, don’t you think the Jarvis family would have heard about them? Why didn’t they just move away?)

I suppose I should give away the ending of “Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter.” What should it matter, anyway? This isn’t really the “final chapter,” after all. Jason has picked off all of the teenagers who just came in for a good time at the lake and has now come after Tommy and his sister. After the sister has tried to fight him off, little Tommy, who grabs a machete and slices the originally invincible killer apart, rescues her. That’s right—the little kid has done what all the older teenagers should have done in the other movies. He kills Jason…but he’ll come back. You’ll see.

Phone Booth (2003)

5 Mar

phonebooth

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Phone Booth” is among a certain type of thriller that places one character in one location for certain reasons that keep the plot going. Movies like this are fascinating for two reasons—1) It helps to show the talent of the actor playing that one person, since practically the whole movie has to ride on that performance. 2) It’s always interesting to see where the plot is going to go, since we, as an audience, are stuck in this location with the character. In the case of “Phone Booth,” we get a solid performance from Colin Farrell as he is trapped in a phone booth by a psychotic sniper who will shoot him if he leaves.
Joel Schumacher’s “Phone Booth” is pure thriller and very entertaining. It has a brisk pace, tight editing, a running time of 80 minutes, and twists and turns throughout. It even has the brave task of telling the story in real-time. It all begins with our introduction to slick, quick-thinking publicist Stu Shepard (Colin Farrell, sporting a designer suit and a fake luxury watch) making deals through his cell phone while walking the streets of Manhattan. He’s a fast-talker who can make anything up on the spot (he could probably make deals with the Mafia if he could), and he won’t take “no” for an answer. Once business is taken care of, he makes his daily visit to a telephone booth (which, according to the opening ominous narration, he’ll be the last person to use before it is torn down) to call a young actress, Pam (Katie Holmes)—he doesn’t want the call to appear on his cellular bill, which his wife Kelly (Radha Mitchell) checks every month.

After Stu makes the call, the phone in the booth rings. Of course, he decides to answer it, thus setting in motion the scheme devised by a psychotic. The voice on the other line is tough, derisive, and menacing, and warns Stu that he knows everything he needs to know about him. He wants Stu to confess to Kelly that he wants to sleep with Pam, or he’ll go ahead and do it for him. So, Stu tries to talk his way out of this situation, but it turns out it’s more complicated than it seems. It turns that the caller is a sniper and has a rifle aimed right at him from one of the many windows surrounding the city street. He warns Stu that if he leaves the phone booth, he will be shot unless he does what the voice tells him to do.

And so, Stu is trapped in the phone booth, looking for ways to talk and think himself out of this dangerous fix. Things get even more complicated when the sniper shoots a thug who messes with Stu while he’s in the phone booth, and so the police see Stu as a key suspect. Any sudden movements, and the police will shoot him. The location is filled with panic, as the police captain Ramey (Forest Whitaker) tries to handle the situation. He starts to believe that Stu is not the perpetrator, but a victim of something more than he expected. However, if Stu tells him what’s really happening here, he will be shot (and so will Ramey, as the voice threatens), and so he and Ramey have to communicate nonverbally while keeping the sniper from suspecting anything. That’s a clever move that keeps the tension level rising in this film.

It’s quite intriguing how the film is able to keep Stu inside that phone booth through a majority of the film’s running time. You would think that this predicament could be solved easily, but no—the writer Larry Cohen continues to find ways to keep him in there until the film reaches a suitable ending. Twist upon twist is thrown into the plot, and it just keeps going like that, keeping the suspense alive.

Colin Farrell is forced to carry this movie, and it’s a good, tough performance. He’s very effective in a performance that shows that confusion, fear, and unease can overcome even the most confident of men.

Kiefer Sutherland is the threatening sniper, as he does what he can with his limitations. The villain of “Phone Booth” is for the most part heard but not seen. Sutherland has one of those distinctive voices that you can’t help but listen to, even if he says something that you don’t want to hear.

There are a few things about “Phone Booth” that keep it from being great, however. For one thing, the women in Stu’s life are underwritten roles and it seems like any actress could play these parts. It’s hard to care for who Stu winds up caring for more when both their lives turn out to be in jeopardy later when they’re among the crowd, and the sniper plans to shoot someone else to further his point.

There’s also the hyperkinetic camerawork and editing styles that get pretty annoying after a while—it makes the film look more like a music video, as if director Schumacher wanted to try everything he could to keep the tension alive. Sometimes, it works; other times, it’s pretty irritating. But what really annoyed me, and thankfully went away quickly enough (though that’s not saying enough), was the overacting of a group of street hookers who, early in the central treacherous situation, constantly interrupt and annoy Stu by trying to get him out of the phone booth so they can “conduct their own business.” They never shut up! Their screeching complaining and ranting are enough to wish the sniper would just shoot them dead.

Thankfully, like I said, they’re out of the picture before they get even more aggressively annoying.

“Phone Booth” is a sharp, engaging thriller with a solid leading performance, a very menacing threat, and a story that keeps audiences on-edge. And as a plus, it’s over in just an hour and 20 minutes.

Dirty Dancing (1987)

5 Mar

Dirty-Dancing-lift_l

Smith’s Verdict: **1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

So many people have told me to watch the 1987 movie “Dirty Dancing,” and I’m not usually one to give in to peer pressure, as I’ve heard of it six years before I finally got around to checking it out.

What is it about this movie that people just go crazy over? Well, the dancing is certainly fun to watch as the actors turn out to be good, lively dancers. The romance between the two star-crossed lovers seems to have people interested. What do I think of the movie, personally? Well, the dancing isn’t bad, like I said. The acting’s not bad either, and we have an engaging young couple, played by Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze, to follow. But as a story, “Dirty Dancing” tells us nothing new. This is all stuff we’ve seen before.

Let me give the gist of the story and you see if you can predict the rest of it. The story takes place in summer 1963, as 17-year-old “Baby” Houseman (Grey) is vacationing with her rich family at a resort in the Catskill Mountains. Her father is Dr. Houseman (Jerry Orbach), the personal physician of the owner of the resort (Jack Weston). The owner tries to set Baby up with his obnoxious son Neil (Lonny Price), but she doesn’t like him. Baby finds excitement in the after-hours parties thrown by the hotel staff. She’s intrigued by the “dirty dancing” and wants to get a lesson from hunky dance instructor Johnny Castle (Swayze).

At first Johnny is hesitant, as he doesn’t like the fact that this “cute little rich girl” is hanging around on his and his friends’ turf. But Johnny’s dance partner Penny (Cynthia Rhodes) is pregnant by a waiter who wants nothing to do with her. So Baby helps out by getting money from her father (not telling him what it’s for, but it’s OK—he trusts her) and paying for Penny’s abortion. Then, Johnny agrees to teach Baby and make her his dancing partner for the resort’s final show, and they form a secret relationship.

Can you guess where this is going? Misunderstandings? Attempts to keep them apart? Final reconciliation? The other people realizing their mistakes? Happy ending?

You bet!

Yes, later in the movie, the secret is out, and Baby’s father couldn’t be more disappointed. I was hoping for more understanding by this character, since in the first half of the movie, he seems like a good guy—he’s trusting, listening, and reasonable. But when he finds that Johnny is with his daughter, his ethics are practically nonexistent. Anyone can see that this is a good guy and wouldn’t hurt Baby in any way—anyone, that is, except him.

The “dirty dancing” in the title is somewhat false. Some moves are hot enough, but since the movie is rated PG-13, it doesn’t get much hotter than that. For a movie called “Dirty Dancing,” this is pretty tame.

Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey are likable, share good chemistry, and are actually great dancers. And “Dirty Dancing” does have its cute moments, as well as a nicely-done (though clichéd) final dancing sequence, taking place during the final show at the resort. So this isn’t a bad movie; but the story gave me nothing new. I wouldn’t mind so much except so much dwells on many clichés that there are many times when I didn’t really care about what was happening.