Archive | April, 2013

Weird Science (1985)

19 Apr

weirdscience-blog-jpg_183740

Smith’s Verdict: **1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Weird Science” has its pleasurable elements. It mixes teenage male fantasies with “The Bride of Frankenstein” and adds some science, as well as magic. It’s a movie written and directed by John Hughes, who specializes in putting people (mostly teenagers, like “Sixteen Candles” and “The Breakfast Club”) in mostly realistic situations while writing some very clever dialogue for his characters to say to keep the comedy and drama in the same rhythm. “Weird Science” has some clever dialogue, but the realism is replaced with more of a fantasy. I don’t mind that, but the premise doesn’t quite follow up to its own potential.

Anthony Michael Hall (Hughes’ typecast geek) and Ilan Mitchell-Smith play two dorky buddies named Gary and Wyatt who fantasize about becoming popular and winning the girls of their dreams. One night, they watch “The Bride of Frankenstein” and that’s when Gary gets the idea of creating their own girl. But not by digging up any dead girl and reanimating her, as Frankenstein did. They create a girl on Wyatt’s computer by hacking into main computer systems and simulating a woman that they can create and fill knowledge into. But as in “The Bride of Frankenstein,” lightning strikes and things go way beyond what they expected. Before you can say “it’s alive,” the girl (no, WOMAN) they created is real enough to stand in their doorway (looking almost impossibly stunning) and shower with the boys.

This perfect woman is played by Kelly LeBrock, complete with beauty, sensuous lips, and a heavy British accent to go along with it. Named Lisa, she is no ordinary woman. She is not a dumb bimbo or the cover of this week’s Playboy. She actually has a brain. She’s intelligent and sensitive to the boys’ needs. She also has magic powers (she can get a car, change the boys’ suits at parties, make anything happen). Lisa realizes the boys’ insecurities and spends the movie attempting to make them feel better about themselves.

Of John Hughes’ latest teenage movies, this is probably the least in the entries. The movie starts out with a lot of clever ideas, but the problem is the movie doesn’t really seem to go through with them. The performances by Hall and Mitchell-Smith are engaging and Kelly LeBrock is perfect as Lisa. I just wish they were involved in a better story. A supporting character that is supposed to be funny doesn’t fit here at all—that is Bill Paxton as Chet, Wyatt’s nasty, sadistic older brother. He doesn’t fit in this movie at all, except to provide nasty jokes. His come-uppance (or rather, his punchline from Lisa) is also nasty and not very funny.

“Weird Science” has plenty of good ideas that could’ve made it a better movie. But because it does have its moments, I would say rent it.

Fireproof (2008)

19 Apr

fireproof13

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Fireproof” is a movie drenched in sentimentality, and yet it worked for me because it remained consistent in tone. Somehow when the message in “Fireproof” draws itself even clearer than it already has, the movie became more touching. It comes close to the edge of becoming too sentimental for its own good, and I think other people who see this movie will believe it did already reached the edge, but it still worked for me. It touched my heart, and that’s what it was trying to do in the first place.

The film, made by a Christian film company called Sherwood Pictures (based upon the Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia), is a drama with this message—be true to your spouse. It also coins a process for married couples to use when it seems like their marriages are falling apart—this process is called “The Love Dare.” It’s a 40-day procedure that the main character in “Fireproof” has to perform in an attempt for his wife to love him again.

Caleb Holt (Kirk Cameron) is a fireman whose marriage with Catherine (Erin Bethea), a nurse, is falling apart. Catherine hates Caleb’s addiction to Internet pornography and his large savings for a boat he intends to buy. She would rather use the money to buy a better hospital bed for her sick mother.

Catherine says she wants out, and then files for divorce. Caleb turns to his father (Harris Malcom) and tells him about the impending divorce. His answer is “The Love Dare.” Caleb isn’t so sure about this at first, but soon enough, he’s going through this procedure day by day. In the meantime, Catherine isn’t buying her husband’s sudden niceness and just ignores his offers, while also possibly having an affair with a handsome doctor she works with. But the truth of the matter is that Caleb has indeed changed and he realizes that his motto—“Never leave your partner behind”—doesn’t just count at the firehouse or on rescue missions, but also—and arguably, most importantly—with your spouse.

“Fireproof” handles this plot by making me think that it’s going one way, while really, some of the time, it’s going another—I won’t even go into the point where the divorce papers come in—and that was a surprise. I’m uncertain that audiences for this movie will notice that—Christian audiences, mainly—but I am certain that the film’s weepy ending will sincerely move them. And I need to be honest here…I came so close to crying. The film’s ending did indeed touch me and that counts for this review.

The film isn’t entirely based on those moments that make people want to weep, however. There are comic antics performed by the other firemen—I love the scene where Caleb challenges a rookie to a tobacco-sauce-drinking contest. And there are two rescue scenes—one involving a car on train tracks and the other involving a burning house. This is a surprise, too. The action is well-directed (by Alex Kendrick, pastor at Sherwood Baptist Church) and well-paced.

“Fireproof” doesn’t feature acting that would cause consideration for awards, but there are some decent performances, especially from Kirk Cameron as the lead character and from Ken Bevel as a fireman who encourages Caleb to become a born-again Christian. Erin Bethea is adequate as Catherine, but her shouting scenes are a little off.

I understand whom “Fireproof” will appeal to and I believe that other people—especially those with marriages that are falling apart—should see it too. It’s a sweet, sentimental film with a positive message—what’s wrong with that?

Wayne’s World 2 (1993)

19 Apr

waynes world

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

After the success of the first “Wayne’s World” movie, you’d think they couldn’t come up with a sequel that works, like maybe there wouldn’t be enough charm and humor to carry over. But fortunately, “Wayne’s World 2” does work. It’s a funny sequel with the same endearing characters and some very funny jokes. It’s not quite up there with its predecessor, but it’s still an enjoyable film that made me laugh.

Wayne (Mike Myers) and Garth (Dana Carvey) are back and they now live in an abandoned doll factory after moving out of their parents’ houses. They still do their cable access show, “Wayne’s World,” and still know how to party. But also, they are still insecure about their careers. That’s good—if they were, they’d be too confident and possibly unlikable. Wayne’s girlfriend Cassandra (Tia Carrere) is also back and even hotter than she was in the original. (As Wayne would say—schwing!)

One night, Wayne has a dream in which Jim Morrison (Michael Nickles) and a weird naked Indian take him to a desert to tell him the purpose of his life. So, Wayne decides to put on a concert in his hometown of Aurora, Illinois, called “WayneStock.” Aerosmith, Van Halen, and Rip Taylor are among the choices for the concert, but it doesn’t seem like they will sign on. This is not going to be easy.

But the movie isn’t all about music. The plot thickens a little bit when a blockhead record producer Bobby (Christopher Walken)—who is promoting Cassandra and her band—has his eyes for Cassandra and tries to steal her away from Wayne. Cassandra doesn’t take Bobby seriously but Wayne has his own thoughts about the two of them together. Garth, on the other hand, is timid towards a really hot babe named Honey Hornee (pronounced Hor-NAY) who happens to be played by Kim Basinger. I love the scene where she invites him over for dinner and puts the move on him—Garth is scared and when the two finally kiss, Garth is floating in the air.

And then there are a lot of big laughs here. The funniest scene in the movie is a fight scene in which Wayne does battle with Cassandra’s father—their voices and dialogue are badly dubbed and every time an arm moves, a whooshing sound is heard. And I also liked the Village People/”Y.M.C.A.” reference, the jokes about the Doors and the naked Indians, and the character of an old roadie (Ralph Brown) who now tells the same boring stories again and again. I also liked the bit where a “better actor” (Charlton Heston) is brought in to replace a “bad actor,” as well as a quick satire of a famous “Jurassic Park” scene.

Wayne and Garth are still likeable and funny without being mean-spirited. One aspect of their comedy is their vocabulary—they say “Excellent!” a lot, they go “Schwing!” whenever a babe passes by, they say they’re going to “hurl” on some occasions, and Wayne even lets out “lung butter.” It’s hard not to like these guys—they live in a world all their own, but they’re definitely not nerds. The movie shows that too—early in the movie, when the guys go to an Aerosmith concert, they run into two nerds and they are nothing alike. There are a lot of laughs in “Wayne’s World 2”; it’s a fine sequel.

MacGruber (2010)

19 Apr

macgruber-is-more-of-a-three-wire-guy.jpg.pagespeed.ce.4gvm7KxeLM

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Let me just put this out of the way. “MacGruber” is not one of the worst SNL-sketch adaptations. But then again, it’s not one of the best either. This is a slick but sort-of depraved action-comedy with an unlikable hero and jokes that are mostly hit-and-miss. Sure there were parts when I laughed but even those were chuckles when all I wanted was to laugh out loud. I am a fan of the original sketch that runs on “Saturday Night Live.” For those who aren’t familiar with the sketch, it features Will Forte as a low-rent MacGyver named MacGruber (complete with blond mullet and said in one of the sketches to be MacGyver’s son), who in each sketch is caught along with his partner (Kristen Wiig) in desperate situations in which he must defuse a bomb with household materials and yet is always distracted. The sketches are funny and made with a great deal of energy humor.

It should come as no surprise that the director of the film adaptation to the sketches (named “MacGruber”) is Jorma Taccone. What does surprise me, however, is how less he has to work with here and how much more he could’ve made out of the material, given the energy and creativity and humor of the SNL Digital Shorts he co-creates with Akiva Schaffer and Andy Samberg (all three are the Lonely Island; Schaffer is an executive producer here).

What also surprises me is how much of a jerk MacGruber is. If one of the characters were to say that about MacGruber in the film, they would not say “jerk.” They would’ve used the seven-letter word for “jerk.” There is a great deal of profanity in this R-rated movie; f-bombs are being dropped and even the main villain’s name can’t be said. His name is Dieter van C^%#@h (use your imagination but do not say it out loud). But back to what I was trying to get across at the beginning of this paragraph. In the sketch, you would get a few guesses that MacGruber might be a jerk but you wouldn’t care because you’d be laughing at how goofy he is. But here, Will Forte plays MacGruber as a man who uses his own partner as a shield from gunfire, rips out unsuspecting guards’ throats, and acts as if he wants everyone to take a hike.

I guess I can say that Will Forte, very funny on “Saturday Night Live,” plays the main character very well. He does show some potential as a comedic actor. For example, there’s a scene in which he distracts security guards for the villain by stripping naked and walking towards them with his hands covering his privates and a stick of celery sticking out of his rear end. I also like how he takes his car radio with him every time he steps out of his Ferrari and how he fires a machine gun. He looks as if it’s the first time he’s ever fired one.

Showing more comedic charisma are Forte’s co-stars Kristen Wiig (always fabulous), reprising her role as MacGruber’s assistant Vicki St. Elmo, and Ryan Philippe as the straitlaced Lt. Dixon Piper. They play off Forte very well as comedic foils. I especially liked how Wiig, in one scene, shows her comedic talent in a scene set in a restaurant while disguised as MacGruber. She’s really funny here. I also liked her doing the countdowns in a few bits when they’re needed. Ryan Philippe is good as the lieutenant who, in one scene, is used as a human target when MacGruber is attacked. “How’d you know I was wearing a bulletproof vest?” “You were wearing a bulletproof vest?!”

You may have heard those quotes in the trailer. With the exception of that stick of celery, just about every amusing bit from this movie is in the trailer. That’s always a bad move. It inspires people to ask the question, “Why didn’t I just watch the trailer so many times?”

Oh I should also mention the name of the actor who plays the profanely named villain. Well, it’s Val Kilmer and he’s suitably slimy in a role that requires him to be a standard action movie villain. The movie’s main plot involves MacGruber taking down this bad guy who stole a nuclear missile to blow up Washington, DC. What he’s planning on accomplishing, I don’t know. Oh and I should also point out that the reason Maya Rudolph was only in the first MacGruber sketch and never seen again is not that Rudolph left the show (although that is true) but because the villain in this movie killed her character. (Maya Rudolph shows up in a flashback for a cameo.)

I have to say I smiled at the beginning of “MacGruber.” When the opening credits rolled and we first see MacGruber in a montage, I smiled widely when the music turned into an orchestra version of the “MacGruber” theme song. And then the choir ended it with “MacGruber…he made a f—ing movie! MacGruber!” I thought for sure I was in for a treat. What I got was not one of the worst SNL adaptations but definitely one of the best. Maybe if Jorma Taccone had spent more time giving us more of MacGruber’s origins and gave us more of his goofiness. Instead, we get MacGruber in one bizarre sex scene and strangely enough, I think MacGruber only made one explosive device in this entire hour-and-a-half movie. Only one. Too bad it didn’t work.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

18 Apr

shaun-of-the-dead-trio

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

There are many moments in zombie horror movies in which I have to stifle laughter. That is why “Shaun of the Dead” is such a pleasurable film, because I can laugh as loud as I want. Why? Because “Shaun of the Dead” is a British zombie comedy—it is supposed to make you laugh out loud because it’s intentionally funny. It’s obvious that the director Edgar Wright has studied the old great zombie movies, as well as the bad ones, to create a spoof, while at the same time producing a semi-serious horror film.

“Shaun of the Dead” is one of the funniest and brightest comedies I have ever seen. This is one of those great comedies where the film stops once in a while to give us a few chuckles after a big laugh, then starting over again with a big laugh and then a few chuckles so we can get hold of ourselves. I love the energy and wit that was put into this film. I’m even going to give it a four-star rating—I think it deserves it.

Simon Pegg is brilliantly cast as the main character Shaun, a lazy twenty-something whose best friend Ed (Nick Frost) lives with him, much to the discomfort of Shaun’s girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield). He likes his life just fine, as does Ed, who is probably lazier than Shaun. But Liz wants to do something different. Shaun doesn’t see it her way and the two break up. Darn. If only there was a way for Shaun to redeem his self-esteem…

Shaun and Ed wouldn’t know a zombie if she popped up in their backyard. A female zombie does appear in their backyard, but they think she’s drunk, realizing later what’s really going on. But as it turns out, the whole town is flooded with the slowly-moving flesh-eaters who can only be killed by “removing the head or destroying the brain.” Of course, you have to believe what you hear on the news in a desperate situation. Which album would you throw at a zombie’s head?

“Purple Rain.” “No.” “Sign o’ the Times” “Definitely not!” “The ‘Batman’ soundtrack.” “Throw it.”

Shaun and Ed pick up Liz and her roommates—David (Dylan Moran) and Dianne (Lucy Davis). They also take along Shaun’s mother Barbara (Penelope Wilton) and stepfather Phil (Bill Nighy). (Hmm…Barbara? I wonder if Ed will make a “Night of the Living Dead” reference anytime soon, using that name.) Anyway, Phil has a zombie bite but it’s OK because he “ran it under a cold tap.” The deadpan manner in which Bill Nighy delivers that line is one of many pleasures in this movie.

The movie has fun with its premise. If you think about it, zombies are not effective villains anymore. They move too slowly to be menacing and are too dumb to be diabolical. “Shaun of the Dead” sees them as targets for British humor and also overshadows them with actors who have fun with the goofiness of the premise and their characters. Also, the zombies are seen as metaphors for those who “sleepwalk through life.” One of the joys of this film is that the movie basically starts out as a sitcom and midway through the film changes tone. The zombies invade and the sitcom characters must escape their same, dull, boring routine and learn to survive the invasion. If the zombies hadn’t invaded, Shaun would have still been a lazy slacker, playing video games with Ed.

The movie isn’t just biting satire. There are plenty of other big laughs, as well as smiles, as when Dianne teaches the rest of the group how to act like zombies in order to blend in. Other great scenes: Shaun and Ed look through old LPs and decide which ones to use to decapitate a zombie; the group fights a zombie at the pub while a cheesy Queen song is played; Ed’s “Barbara” line (you’ll see). There is also a large amount of gore, but not enough to make you queasy.

And taking us through it all is Shaun, played with a solid, straight-man performance by Simon Pegg, who also co-wrote the film. We’re supposed to like Shaun and identify with him and we do. Pegg’s great. Nick Frost, as Ed, is a great supporting actor—goofy yet sincere at the same time.

You’d get what you’d expect in “Shaun of the Dead” but you’d also get more. The movie never steers wrong. It’s hilarious, good-looking, and well-acted—did you ever think a zombie movie could contain all three of those adjectives?

The Beaver (2011)

18 Apr

beaver011-640x420

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

With an odd title, a bizarre premise for a screenplay, and a lead actor that, given the news spread about his personal life, wouldn’t seem like a comfortable choice, “The Beaver” wouldn’t seem like anything special or even worth watching, for that matter. But I was pleasantly surprised to find myself loving this endearingly earnest drama about a man who uses a beaver puppet as a way of coping with his rock-bottom life and rising to make everything better.

Mel Gibson plays the man, named Walter Black, who is described via opening narration as a man who was a decent family man and a successful businessman working with toys, but has lately found himself to be so bored that he would just neglect everything in his life, including his wife and two sons.

Walter leaves the house. On his first night away, he stops at a hotel and contemplates suicide. But then, he stops himself and realizes that the only one that can save him now is himself. Although, instead of him revealing this to himself, he uses an old beaver hand puppet to speak for him, and to him, strangely. Who is “he?” The Beaver.

As the Cockney-accented Beaver, Walter attempts to get his life back on track. He spends time with his youngest son, makes his wife happy again, and even regains proper control of his toy company. But while this Beaver stuff is cute for a while, his wife starts to question her husband’s sanity and gets more concerned about him.

This is very well-handled and Jodie Foster, as director, has a nice visual style in the way she intersects certain sequences with everyday things to keep scenes interesting. She handles the characters with respect and intelligence and doesn’t talk down on them. Even her own character doesn’t go through all of the usual stuff we’re accustomed to seeing the reactive wife character go through. She’s actually a three-dimensional character, and she does have her limits.

Mel Gibson turns in an admirable performance as Walter Black. With everything that seems to be going on with him, you could say that his Walter is just a reflection of his own lifestyle. If you think that way, it could be unsettling and I can understand that. But separate the art from the artist and you have a deeply effective portrayal of a possible mental case of a man who has hit rock bottom and realizes he’s the only one who get his life back together again.

There’s a subplot involving Walter’s troubled teenage son Porter (Anton Yelchin) and his relationship with the popular cheerleader/class valedictorian Norah (Jennifer Lawrence). Norah hires Porter to write her graduation speech for her, and they develop a nice friendship together as they learn more about themselves. You could argue that this has little to no significance to the story involving Walter and the Beaver getting his life back together. But there are two reasons to tolerate it. The first is, there is some significance in that Porter doesn’t want to be like his father and yet his relationship with Norah sort of helps him realize that he can be who he wants to be, and that his father isn’t so bad after all. And the second is, even without the first, Yelchin and Lawrence share nice chemistry. Their scenes together are very sweet—as sweet as the “teenage-relationship subplots” (it should be its own obligatory element) in dramas like “The Ice Storm” and “Snow Angels.” Jennifer Lawrence turns in an excellent performance (when have you ever seen her do a bad job?) as making us feel for Norah, as she has her own skeletons in her closet.

“The Beaver” is a very effective drama, despite the expectations that I’m sure everybody has of it. If you can buy everything in this screenplay and respect the accomplishment that it was given, you’ll be just as pleased as I was.

Little Manhattan (2005)

18 Apr

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

As “Little Manhattan” opens, we’re reminded of how it was back when we were little kids when it came to boys and girls. Before we even started school, we got along okay. But then, after the first few years of grade school, boys and girls lived in a universe separated of each other. Also, it was feared that if a girl touched a boy, it would lead to “cooties.” But as you get a little older, you get a little wiser, as boys start to see girls in a different way.

Deny all you want, but that’s how it was back when we were all little and cute and not too bright. “Little Manhattan” reminds us of how it was, guided by a narration from the film’s main character—a ten-year-old kid named Gabe who lives in Manhattan and has fallen in love for the first time in his life.

Gabe (Josh Hutcherson) is a good kid who confused about love at first. His parents are going through a divorce and he doesn’t understand how it all works. With basketball with his friends and football with his dad, he doesn’t understand girls yet. Then, he asks his dad if he can take karate class. When he starts taking that class, he is surprised when his sparring partner is the pretty eleven-year-old Rosemary Telesco (Charlie Ray). After a few “spars” together, they start to become friends. This is unusual to Gabe, and there’s a sweet scene set in a clothing store, where Rosemary tries on a dress with Gabe accompanying her; Gabe wonders why he is looking at her as if she were the most beautiful thing in the world.

To Gabe’s surprise, he and Rosemary spend more time together and he becomes very interested in her. As the movie progresses their relationship, Gabe questions what is happening to him and why he is falling in love with Rosemary. But when things go great, Gabe learns that Rosemary is leaving for summer camp and won’t be back until the end of summer. Gabe takes the news a bit too far and almost ruins their relationship from being so frustrated.

“Cute” would be the best way to describe “Little Manhattan”—actually, the film barely gets away with being so cute. But it strangely works. The two child actors are very good. Josh Hutcherson has enough credibility and energy to carry this movie successfully. There is another sweet scene with Gabe and Rosemary on a date to a fancy party with Rosemary’s parents. Gabe gets the nerve to hold Rosemary’s hand and through his narration, he’s afraid that his hand is too sweaty and she’s disgusted. There is a lot of the kid’s narration through about 60-70% of “Little Manhattan,” and it works. Charlie Ray is quite good as Rosemary. She plays the character as a smart-for-her-age eleven-year-old girl. She has an effective scene in which Gabe finally tells her he loves her and she is confused. She isn’t quite sure what love is. These two young actors are forced to carry the movie and they do it well.

“Little Manhattan” is a sweet and smart family treasure. After a few dumb family movies that are supposed to be truthful, this one hits the nail right on the head. This movie captures the memories of falling in love for the first time, and captures the true mentality of falling in puppy love. It also has a harsh but truthful subplot in which Gabe copes with his parents’ oncoming divorce, which constantly has Gabe questioning the true meaning of “love.” And the scenes with Gabe and Rosemary together are sweet, and the actors share convincing chemistry together. “Little Manhattan” is a sweet story about young love with two appealing leads and an enlightening view on love.

NOTE: Now, I have to admit—I had my doubts during the first shots of the movie, which show a lot of vomit as a symptom of “cooties.” But don’t run away from those first shots—stay a while so the movie can get to its story.

Lawless (2012)

18 Apr

lawless-2012-picture05

Smith’s Verdict: **1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Lawless” is a mixed bag. It’s well-made and well-acted, but there seems to be something that’s bringing it down. That “something” is possibly the trying-too-hard syndrome. To make this film about violent and ignorant people a more mainstream project than to be expected from the Weinstein Company doesn’t entire work in the film’s favor. Unfortunately, I can only praise the acting and cinematography, while the rest of the material doesn’t do much to support them.

“Lawless” is a gangster film based on the story of the Bondurant brothers, who sold moonshine in Franklin County, Virginia, during Prohibition in the United States. (How much is based on fact, I’m not entirely sure.) The brothers—timid Jack (Shia LaBeouf), tough Forrest (Tom Hardy), and manic Howard (Jason Clarke)—are seen as the best, most prominently respected bootleggers around. They make great moonshine, using their bar for their activities, with help from Forrest’s lover Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain) and Jack’s enthusiastic best friend Cricket (Dane DeHaan, “Chronicle”).

Enter Special Agent Charley Rakes (Guy Pearce), a slimy, smarmy Chicago federal agent. He’s working with the local sheriff to attempt to shut them down…or at least, that’s what I think he wants to do. I say that because this guy Rakes is such a cartoonishly evil bad guy, which his sadistic persona and oily appearance (he’s ridiculously well-dressed, with his hair slicked back as well) certainly don’t do him justice for. There’s no motive with this guy; no dramatic purpose. This is one of the problems with the movie—a lot of the action scenes ride with this character, the antagonist, and most of them don’t work because they’re not amounting to much, from a dramatic standpoint.

Also, I’m wondering why Rakes wasn’t shot early into the proceedings, but these movies mainly require him to live to see the climax. And speaking of certain/uncertain death, don’t tell me you’re not able to guess the fate of the young, enthusiastic, innocent, jittery Cricket the moment he runs on screen for the first time. Audiences love him, but those who have seen many other movies like this will know that he’s a dead man walking.

The real reason to see “Lawless” is the acting. Aside from Shia LaBeouf providing a likable lead character (proving once again that he can be a credible, appealing actor), Jason Clarke being suitably maniacal, and Gary Oldman in a small role as a Chicago gangster, the real standouts are Tom Hardy as Forrest and Jessica Chastain as Maggie. Hardy is charismatic and delivers a solid, strong screen presence—I can even forgive the strange scene in which his throat is cut open and he lives long enough to crawl to the hospital and be treated, because Hardy makes it believable somehow. Jessica Chastain, whom I’m still convinced is an angel, is as great as expected, and has her sexiest role to date (she’s even topless at one point), playing an exotic dancer from the city who comes to the country to get away from the violence she gets herself into after the brothers mess with Rakes. Guy Pearce…well, he just does what he’s required to do as Rakes.

There is a great deal of violence in “Lawless,” as you’d expect from an American gangster film. Things get pretty vicious, particularly near the end as the battle lines are crossed. Those scenes actually strike the right note of tension that this fable (if you will) requires. But before that, like I said, the action scenes may have the grit, but they don’t bring the interesting moral dilemmas that something like the remake of “True Grit” was able to deliver, by comparison. It’s just set out like this—the illegal bootleggers (innocent, young Jack and tough, heart-of-gold Forrest) are good; the man trying to do the right thing (the over-the-top villainous Rakes) is bad. And there are some gangsters thrown in for measure (notice I didn’t say “good” measure). “Lawless” is not flawless, I’m sad to say.

Armageddon (1998)

18 Apr

armageddon-1998-03-g

Smith’s Verdict: *1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

1998’s “Armageddon” shares the same premise as “Deep Impact,” which came out the same year as this one. Both movies are about a giant asteroid about to crash to earth and wipe out mankind. But if there’s one thing to be said about “Deep Impact,” it’s that it’s a much better film than this loud, obnoxious, boring, distasteful action movie/special effects extravaganza.

“Armageddon” is the best title for this movie. As Gene Siskel, of “Siskel and Ebert,” put it, “Armageddon is appropriately titled because while watching it, you’ll feel as though you’ve been in combat—visual combat and aural combat.” He gave this film a thumbs-up, but my review is much closer to what Ebert thought of it.

The movie is about the threat of an asteroid that is said to be the size of Texas that could wipe out the whole planet. “Nothing could survive, not even bacteria.” Billy Bob Thornton plays a NASA chief who has to find a way to save the planet. He comes up with a solution: hire a bunch of oil drillers to go up into space and drill to the core of the sucker and then blow it up. Bruce Willis plays the leader of the drillers Harry Stamper, who is said to be the world’s greatest driller (what a distinction). He has his own team with him and they’re all different types of people (so we can tell them apart) and they’re just a ragtag band. Included in the team are a sex-obsessed weirdo (Steve Buscemi), a bass-voiced giant (Michael Clarke Duncan), and the boyfriend of Harry’s daughter, whom Harry disapproves of, shown in a completely over-the-top tantrum beginning. The boyfriend is played by Ben Affleck.

I guess “Armageddon” is supposed to be entertaining because there are nonstop special effects, little human story, and shots that don’t even last twenty seconds. This doesn’t even feel much like a movie rather than an overlong trailer, to say the least. Once the characters are up in space, the movie just drags on and on and on and it got very boring. I kept waiting…and waiting…for something to make sense.

Then, the movie was over. The second half of this movie is full of very tightly-edited scenes of sci-fi action and it all felt like a dead zone as it ran for an hour and a half. There are a lot of action scenes and they don’t really pay off or add to anything.

The characters here are dull, with the possible exception of Liv Tyler. She plays Harry’s daughter and gives a piece of realism to the human story, as much as there is. But Bruce Willis is wasted here as the dull leader of the drillers. The same can also be said for Billy Bob Thornton, who is forgettable here. Ben Affleck isn’t likable here in the slightest—he’s just a jerk.

The movie has very cheesy clichéd scenes that have been done to death. We get the slow-motion walking shots by the heroes, the over-the-top save-the-world speech, and farewell scenes that are not touching or effective just overdone. I wouldn’t mind so much if I wasn’t so bored already.

The movie runs about two-and-a-half hours. Why? I’m guessing action-director Michael Bay would like this movie as a popcorn movie or maybe he didn’t even want it that way. Whatever he wanted to do, he failed doing it. On the comic relief side, there is hardly any humor that is intentional and that’s also not a good sign. Some of the jokes that the characters say at the beginning are missing punch lines. Just when it feels like there might be one, the scene cuts to another. The worst part is that the movie hardly stops to take a breath once in a while. Does Bay think that the audience has an ingenious attention span?

See if you buy this—the planet is in huge jeopardy, right? An asteroid the size of Texas is going to crash down and wipe out humanity, so the heroes have to blow it up. Well, if the asteroid is that big, then wouldn’t even a piece be enough to wipe out the United States? And also, the characters are drillers who must be trained to be astronauts. Wouldn’t be easier to have astronauts train to be drillers?

“Armageddon” is a special-effects mess.

Disillusioned (Short Film) (2011)

17 Apr

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

An aspiring magician (Seth Savoy) believes that the best magicians perform flashy tricks/illusions, instead of the simpler, more subtle ones he can do easily. While working at a magic shop, he constantly attempts to perform complicated tricks to customers. Unfortunately, he tries too hard and can’t seem to get them to work the way his idol, theatrical illusionist Ace Manhattan (Mark Cluvane), can. So his boss (Derrick Rose) tries to convince the boy it doesn’t take big magic to impress an audience. Upon ultimately meeting Manhattan face-to-face, he begins to see that fame isn’t everything.

The idea of a young man wanting to perform something bigger with his talent, and then realizing maybe settling for what he can do best (something smaller) is the best thing for him, isn’t really new. But it is welcome, and does make for some satisfying coming-of-age comedy/dramas. I must admit I’ve never seen it done with magic before, which is the case for “Disillusioned,” a 7-minute short film written and directed by Kim Risi. The result is an interesting, nicely-done short comedy.

I’ve always been a fan of magic. When I was a kid, I would perform the little ball-and-cup trick to my friends and family because it was the only trick I was able to pull off. The reaction I got still satisfies me, and so I would sometimes look into more tricks and wonder how the bigger, more complicated illusions were done. Even as I got older, I still enjoyed going to the occasional magician-workshop at certain events (a Baptist convention, particularly). Some things never get old. But I digress. Anyway, that’s why “Disillusioned” appealed to me, not only in the story’s metaphor that the message mentioned above doesn’t amount to just magic (but also to filmmaking, for those who thought I was just a film critic), but because of the comic ways in which the struggling magician attempted to free himself from handcuffs in five seconds or a straitjacket in 10. The disappearing ball works every time; try it sometime (but after a little practice first).

Not much acting is required in “Disillusioned,” but the one who really steals the show is Mark Cluvane, who is (for lack of a better word) amazing as Ace Manhattan. How do I properly describe his subtly manic portrayal of a flashy magician? I’m not convinced I can, so I’ll just state that he’s hilarious here.

(It was also an effective move to cast Seth Savoy who knew very little about magic, and Derrick Rose and Mark Cluvane who are both skilled magicians. Rose/Cluvane’s experience and Savoy’s inexperience make each magic-trick scene seem more or less real.)

“Disillusioned” may be somewhat predictable, but it is an appealing short film with some effective funny moments (the over-the-top commercial for Ace Manhattan is utterly hilarious), a neat motif with the soundtrack (classical music that shadows the opposite of Savoy’s character’s belief that “people don’t want classical music; they want rock n roll”), and an admittedly welcome-and-effective moral about selflessness.

NOTE: The film can be seen here: https://vimeo.com/27359862

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →