Archive | April, 2013

Night of the Comet (1984)

10 Apr

Night-of-the-Comet

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Night of the Comet” is a B-movie about the end of the world. Sure, logic is thrown out the window. Yes, there are many silly moments in the story. But in the end, “Night of the Comet” is just a good-natured, highly-enjoyable B-movie. I could call it a guilty pleasure, but I hold no guilt on this. I had fun, and chances are other viewers will have fun too.

The film’s hokey narration explains that a comet is hurtling toward Earth around Christmastime—this is the same comet that wiped out the dinosaurs and caused their extinction. In Southern California, we see that people are throwing a midnight comet-party, expecting a light show to bring jolliness to this holiday. But it winds up disintegrating almost the entire Earth population.

Why does the electricity stay on? Why do the cars still work? Why do survivors evolve into zombie-like monsters to eat the other survivors? Your guess is as good as mine. Through the course of the movie, we follow two valley girls—sisters Reggie (Catherine Mary Stuart) and Sam (Kelli Maroney)—as they realize that they’re one of very few people still around after the comet has struck. There’s one good guy named Hector (Robert Beltran), whom the sisters rival over, but everyone else is either a violent zombie or a sadistic looter. There are other people, who are part of a think tank to figure out what to do with the survivors and find a cure for the “infected,” but are they to be trusted?

This movie, like most B-movies, doesn’t care about logic or even humanity at large. But like the appealing ones, it simple takes joy in sharing the adventure of the heroes with us. I liked these protagonists and I liked the way they speak; it’s the typical valley-girl speak spoken with pluck. An example is when Sam is being attacked by gunmen in a supposedly-abandoned shopping mall, mocking these “wimps” saying they can’t shoot anything.

“Night of the Comet” has a nice comic touch that makes it enjoyable. The actors are fun, the dialogue is suitably corny and funny, and I appreciate the fact that it doesn’t take itself too seriously. Even its final climax in which the characters race to thwart the think tank’s plans has its good moments. It’s an entertaining B-movie.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

10 Apr

Jake-Gyllenhaal-as-Sam-Hall-in-The-Day-After-Tomorrow-2004-12

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Well here it is—a movie that tries to warn us about what would happen if we mess up our lovely planet any longer. We use up our resources, we’re partially responsible for global warming, and we may be headed for a nightmarish, cataclysmic future. “The Day after Tomorrow” is a movie that tries to warn us of that, and it cannot be taken entirely seriously, but it’s an entertaining, touching, and scary apocalyptic drama from Roland Emmerich, who apparently loves the planet in many ways to destroy it. In his previous movies, he blew up the White House (“Independence Day”) and set a giant lizard monster loose on Manhattan (“Godzilla”). Now he brings upon the Ice Age in North America. It may be as scientifically accurate as “Godzilla” (those who are new, that means “inaccurate”), but “The Day after Tomorrow” works for me.

We all hope that North America doesn’t freeze over, but if it does, you might want to move away from national monuments because Roland Emmerich has a tendency to destroy those. The very best things about “The Day after Tomorrow” are the special effects. Tornadoes rip through Los Angeles and rip apart the Hollywood sign. A tidal wave crashes through New York, barely putting the head of the Statue of Liberty underwater. All the buildings in the major cities freeze up and their windows crack. Snow nearly buries all the major cities. They look so real, they’re scary. Oh, and there are also shots seen from a space station of the Earth with violent storm fronts.

And we all know from previous disaster movie experiences that the characters the camera and story focus on are going to survive and the rest—billions of the rest—are going to perish in the catastrophic events that occur due to global warming finally threatening humanity. We meet Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), a climatologist who sees it all coming when his computer models the new ice age. Then we are introduced to his teenage son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal), who is headed to New York for an academic decathlon with his schoolmates Laura (Emmy Rossum) and Brian (Arjay Smith). Then we meet another kid in the same competition—a nice kid named J.D. (Austin Nichols). Then we meet Jack’s divorced wife Dr. Lucy Hall (Sela Ward), who is treating a young cancer patient. And then there’s Jack’s friend Jason (Dash Mihok) and an old Scottish meteorologist named Prof. Rapson (the always reliable Ian Holm). The movie switches tracks on who to follow and when Sam and his friends are trapped in a library in New York, Jack and Jason are forced to walk across the snow to rescue them.

Jack tries to warn many people. Of course they ignore him. Here’s a lesson we can all take—US government, if a scientist, geologist, or, in this case, climatologist tells you that the world is headed for disaster and there’s a chance for evacuation, then for goodness sake, just listen to the guy! What if he isn’t crazy? What if he just knows what he’s talking about? Just listen, Vice President Becker (Kenneth Walsh)!

But can Jack and Jason really trek across the snow from Philadelphia to New York? Well they believe they can. And we can too. It’s ridiculous, I know, but the movie has enough good energy to make us almost believe it. And then, there’s the whole plan of evacuating everyone to Mexico. But if North America was to really freeze over, would Mexico really be a safe place to be? And also, is it really worth trying to get your passports when a tidal wave? And then there’s a scene in which Sam and his friends encounter wolves that escaped from a zoo which is also ridiculous.

I am recommending “The Day after Tomorrow” for three reasons. 1) The special effects are downright fantastic. 2) All of these characters are likable and we actually want them to survive. And 3) The movie works as a cautionary tale. It delivers a pro-environment message that I think worked well, despite the possible scientific inaccuracies. I am not quite sure I believe that global warming is real but I do not want to start a statement of my own about it so let’s just leave it at that. I do know that if North America does freeze over, I’ll have only one mind on my mind: stay alive. And thank goodness “The Day after Tomorrow” doesn’t go for the easiest ways out. There are no groups of scientists or astronauts racing to stop it from happening. Nothing could have prevented this from happening. We did this to ourselves. All the main characters have to do in this movie is stay alive. And when the movie ended, I just had to smile. The music builds up, (possible spoiler alert) we see the characters moving forward to new lives (end of possible spoiler alert), and we feel like it’s going to be all right again.

The Mist (2007)

10 Apr

the-mist

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“SOMETHING IN THE MIST!!!”

In a horror film like “The Mist,” this is the line that is a staple for the start of something interesting. Here it is—a thick, eerie mist that spreads across a small town. And an old man runs into a crowded supermarket, saying that “SOMETHING IN THE MIST” took somebody away. The mist blows in, enveloping everything in sight. With half the population of the town inside the supermarket, they all begin to get a glimpse of that certain “SOMETHING IN THE MIST!!!” No one is going anywhere until the mist clears…if it clears.

That’s the premise for “The Mist,” a tense, well-done horror film based on a novella by Stephen King. It was directed by Frank Darabont, making this his third Stephen King film adaptation, following “The Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile.” You could tell by the setup for “The Mist” that this is as far from those other movies as you could get. But “The Mist” is about more than cheap scares and monsters (though there are some). When you get down to it, it’s ultimately about the paranoia that develops when people race to survive together in a terrifying situation and how hopeless it can all seem/be.

It all begins somewhat normally as artist David Drayton (Thomas Jane), his son Billy (Nathan Gamble), and his neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher) drive into town to the supermarket—and this is after a violent storm trashes their neighborhood. But it’s then that the mist turns in and the panicked old man (who, did I mention, has blood on his face) runs in, screaming to shut the doors because the mist is coming and, did I mention—“SOMETHING IN THE MIST!!!”

People step outside and disappear, but it seems clear that they didn’t leave the parking lot. And it’s David and a few others who get an encounter with something with a large tentacle and learn that there really is “SOMETHING IN THE MIST!!!”

David tries to lay it down as he possibly could with the other people in the market that there’s something really dangerous outside. But meanwhile, religious fanatic Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), the town loony, believes this is the sign of the Apocalypse and that God has chosen her to show everyone the way to salvation. She rants and scolds those who try to ignore her…and even brings up the idea of human sacrifice!

Sorry lady, but I don’t think it said in the book of Revelation that God would send giant bugs to kill the unfaithful. I think George A. Romero was closer with his zombie stories.

OK, I did mention “giant bugs,” and sometimes they do look silly. Other times, however, they’re pretty frightening, particularly when you catch glimpses of them (like the giant tentacle I mentioned earlier). They’re also quite unnerving (probably the most unnerving, really) when you see them through the gloom of the mist. But sometimes they do look silly and the CGI is too noticeable, when seen up close.

Mainly though, it’s a story of survival, fear, paranoia, and mistrust. As everyone holes up inside the supermarket and things get worse and worse, the people are divided into two groups. One group is with David’s clear-mindedness, and the other is with Mrs. Carmody’s…delusion. (There’s another group following Brent Norton’s skepticism, but that doesn’t last long, of course.) It’s a matter of time before they turn on each other, and the tension is always there amongst the characters. It asks the question of who are more the monster—the people or the actual monsters. Meanwhile, though, a lot of them turn into unlikely heroes. David turns from a professional painter to the person many people turn to in a crisis—he’s sensible, clear-minded, and quick on his wits. Then there’s the meek, nerdy Ollie (Toby Jones), schoolteacher Amanda Dumfries (Laurie Holden), and elderly Irene (Frances Sternhagen) who turn in some big blows when it comes to fighting the monsters.

What I didn’t need in “The Mist” was the obligatory scene that tries to explain exactly what this mist is and why there are these supernatural beings attacking us. Why not let our imaginations run wild and come up with our own explanations?

But mainly, “The Mist” is a nicely-done, truly scary horror film that us real tension amongst characters who seem realized, monsters that are actually frightening (for the most part), and an ending that is…well, let’s just say this movie ends on a deadly-ironic note and leave it at that.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985)

9 Apr

Mad_Max_Beyond_Thunderdome_37773_Medium

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

In my humble opinion, “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” is the best of the “Mad Max” movies, which is very surprising considering the impact of “The Road Warrior,” the sequel to the original film “Mad Max” that I liked more than the original, actually. “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” is the third in this post-apocalyptic action-film series about a man named Max, who walks around the wasteland that was once America. I liked this better than “The Road Warrior” because of its greater surprises, amazing locations in its fictional world, and (I’m not gonna lie) some of the best action sequences I’ve ever seen. Mad Max remains the same, but the world around him has improved greatly.

To begin the movie, we get aerial shots of this world as Mad Max is forced to ride through the desert on a carriage carried by camels. And as the movie goes on, we see that mankind lives by its own set of new rules and order. Mad Max (Mel Gibson) finds his way to Bartertown, a village constructed out of automobile parts. In Bartertown, anything goes and anything stays. You sell, you buy, you do whatever. The ruler is an imperious queen named Aunty Entity (Tina Turner) and the supervisor is a fat man named the Collector (Frank Thring). And there’s also a little man with an attitude.

Bartertown is powered by an energy source driven by the leavings of…pigs. You see, there are countless pigs in Bartertown’s main factory that eat. Their leavings are used as methane gas. Mad Max finds a job, working with the pigs. However, that requires walking through piles of pig crap.

Bartertown itself makes the first half-hour of this movie memorable and enchanting. But that’s just the beginning. Also in this new world is Thunderdome, a spherical arena that includes the most original idea in the whole series. The spectators climb on the dome to watch matches being fought between two competitors. How do you win? Don’t die. The competitors use harnesses to leap up and down and try to kill each other. As Mad Max is chosen to compete in Thunderdome, it turns into one of the best fight scenes I’ve ever seen in an action movie.

Mad Max survives Thunderdome and escapes Bartertown but then comes across a tribe of children, who dress and act like Native Americans. They believe that they will be saved by someone and they believe that Mad Max is that person. But of course, Mad Max doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or even who he is anymore, for that matter.

Everything comes down to a thrilling action scene that occurs on a train. Tina Turner and her cohorts must fight Mad Max, whose only army is the tribe of savage children.

I don’t really know what else to write about “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” except that I very much admired it. I admired it for its look and how the characters were projected, I admired it for the sets (especially Bartertown, Thunderdome, and even the kids’ home which looks like the home of Peter Pan’s Lost Boys), and I admired it for the spirit in its storytelling. Director George Miller also made the original Mad Max movies and delivers true craftsmanship and a great deal of fun. And I believe “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” is the best in the series.

Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (2001)

9 Apr

Jimmy-Neutron-Boy-Genius-thumb-560xauto-24506

Smith’s Verdict: **1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius” is a computer-animated theatrical movie by Nickelodeon that is more likely a feature-length pilot episode for a TV show on Nickelodeon. This movie was released around the same time as the first “Harry Potter” movie and the first “Lord of the Rings” movie. After your kids have seen “Harry Potter” but may find “Lord of the Rings” too intense, “Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius” may be their cup of tea. This is a fun, silly adventure that will entertain its Nickelodeon target audience.

The title character is a grade-school boy inventor named Jimmy Neutron who in the beginning of the film, flew up in his homemade rocket to send a satellite (a toaster) into space. He believes there is an advanced alien civilization out there and plans to prove it but when he arrives back home, he is late for breakfast and his parents are frustrated. (“I don’t care how advanced they say they are,” Jimmy’s mom says. “If your father and I haven’t met them, they’re strangers.”)

Jimmy has many inventions around his house. He has a mechanical canine named Goddard which explodes when told to “play dead” and then fixes itself. He also has many inventions that get him prepared for school—these inventions would make Rube Goldberg proud. At school, his friends are Carl Wheezer, a fat kid with allergies, and Sheen, an odd kid obsessed with a comic-book superhero named Ultra Lord. His enemies are a snobby girl named Cindy and a cool kid named Nick. Why is Cindy an enemy? Because Jimmy and Carl are at the age when girls are “icky.” “We don’t like girls yet, do we, Jimmy?” Carl asks. “Oh no we don’t! No, no, no!” Jimmy exclaims quickly.

But soon, the advanced alien civilization visit Earth and kidnap all of the parents to take them back to their space station. At first, the kids are thrilled and eat all the ice cream they can eat. But pretty soon, they realize they want their parents back. When Jimmy discovers that the aliens kidnapped them, he and his friends have to get them back.

The way these kids travel into space is charming and maybe more than that. What do they do? They invent spacecrafts out of theme park rides. They don’t have to worry about breathing in space because apparently, the space in this movie has room temperature. Silly, I know, but this won’t encourage kids to try this at home. I liked the scene in which they camp out on the moon and tell a story of “The Blair Witch Project.”

I liked the opening scenes and some of the mid-section of the film. But what I didn’t care much for were the aliens. They’re just standard Nickelodeon-type villains and they grew irritating to me. Also, they looked hideous, maybe unintentionally hideous. They look like sunny-side-up eggs that have been waiting outside on a tray for a week. And so, I found the final half, in which the kids do battle with these monstrosities, to be more dumb than charming.

But I understand who “Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius” appeals to, and it will. The movie is visually stylish and appealing in its main character. But this movie will most likely not be in the same league with the Pixar films or even “Shrek.” Compared to those, the style is a bit inferior and the story is uninspired. Kids will like “Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius”—that’s all I can truly say about it.

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)

9 Apr

looney-tunes-back-in-action

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If you’ve seen Joe Dante’s films, you’d know that there are at least three cartoon elements within each of them. His directorial credits include “Gremlins” (mixing humor with horror), “Explorers” (in which aliens turned out to be cartoonish), “Small Soldiers” (what can I say?), and the third segment of the Twilight Zone movie (in which a kid lives in his own cartoon world). Now, with “Looney Tunes: Back in Action,” he has made the movie that he has been waiting for—a movie that mixes live-action actors with animated Looney Tunes. The result is a silly, entertaining romp.

The last movie that mixed the Looney Tunes with live-action characters was “Space Jam,” which really highlighted Michael Jordan more than the Looney Tunes. This time, Bugs and Daffy are given a lot to do and they’re really the highlights of this fun movie. But the human actors they star alongside with are no slouches either. They have fun with their roles. Brendan Fraser is DJ Drake, a stuntman who is looking for work. (I love this line he delivers: “I’m a stuntman! Did you ever see those ‘Mummy’ movies? I’m in them more than Brendan Fraser is!”) Jenna Elfman is Warner Bros. executive Kate Houghton, “Vice-President, Comedy.”

DJ and Kate, along with Bugs and Daffy, are roped into a mission. The plot of the movie: the evil Chairman of the Acme Corporation (a hardly-recognizable Steve Martin) has a plan to steal a rare, magic diamond called the Blue Monkey, which will allow him to turn everyone in the world into monkeys. DJ’s actor father (ex-007 Timothy Dalton), who turns out to be a secret agent, is kidnapped by the Chairman and so, it’s up to DJ, Kate, and their cartoon partners to save him and the world.

The movie is just plain fun. It has fun with making the Looney Tunes (Bugs, Daffy, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig, etc.) exist in the same world as Hollywood executives. Of course the Looney Tunes would most likely have their own trailers. The film opens with a board meeting, with the Warner brothers (two overweight men with glasses) and Bugs and Daffy discussing the new movie (yes, it’s another “Wabbit season” movie). Daffy is distraught and wants more credit. Other cartoon characters are in the mix too. I like the bit where the cartoon Shaggy and Scooby Doo rip into Shaggy’s live-action counterpart Matthew Lillard while having lunch. And of course, the Chairman has his own animated henchmen, such as Yosemite Sam, Wile E. Coyote, Elmer Fudd, and the Tasmanian Devil.

I said that Bugs and Daffy are the highlights of the movie and they bring terrific comic timing, as you’d expect them to have. Bugs is the relaxed, wisecracking straight-man (or “straight-bunny”) and Daffy is the manic loser-duck who just wants to be heard as a hero instead of a second banana. They’re the Looney Tunes I know and love.

This film has a lot of inspired moments—one, for example, involves a chase scene between the two ‘toon heroes and Elmer Fudd that references art (including Munich’s “The Scream”). And who could forget the scene in which the characters come across “Area 52?” (For those who haven’t seen the movie, I wouldn’t dare spoil it for you.)

Director Joe Dante has given us a silly romp involving spies, the Looney Tunes, and a silly villain (played by an enjoyably over-the-top Steve Martin), with a blend of animation and live-action done to complete success with 1988’s “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” No, this isn’t as wonderful as that one, but it’s still a good deal of fun.

Donnie Darko: The Director’s Cut

8 Apr

Donnie Darko (2001)

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When “Donnie Darko” was released in 2001, it became a box-office flop. But since then, it has become a cult classic. It is easy to see why. “Donnie Darko” had a lot going on with it and while it didn’t pay off the way people expected, the setup left people wondering what they just saw and have their own ways of explaining what happened. I love a movie like this. It lets our imaginations run wild but also, doesn’t make us hate the movie. We love the movie. We embrace it. This is why “Donnie Darko: The Director’s Cut” is actually somewhat better than the original cut. This new cut is twenty minutes longer but not a lot easier to understand. However, fans of the original will love the new footage that delivers more of the characters we have grown to love. It also enriches and strengthens the material, but the tone of the movie remains the same.

Richard Kelly is the director and writer of “Donnie Darko.” He delivers so much ambition to the screen and fills it with great performances and a unique, clever script. He warns us (on the Website and as a line said in the movie) to “pay attention; you might miss something.” It is possible to miss something here, but once you have your own idea on how every strange event in this movie pays off, you don’t really seem to care. I will not say how I think everything paid off because I could be wrong. I do think I have an idea, however. But I still won’t spoil anything.

“Donnie Darko” has a plot that doesn’t toy with reality but also with logic. How can anyone explain the presence of a six-foot-tall creature that is a demon crossed with a rabbit? His name is Frank and he visits the title character of the movie Donnie Darko. In the beginning of the movie, Frank forces Donnie to sleepwalk out of his house in the middle of the night just to tell him that within a month, the world will end. When Donnie wakes up and walks back to his house in the morning, he learns that a jet engine fell into his bedroom. The strange thing is that there are no reports of a lost engine. Nobody knows where it came from. Now how can you explain that?

Donnie Darko is played by Jake Gyllenhaal in an offbeat yet believable performance. He plays a schizophrenic oddball who visits a therapist every day, finds logic in almost everything that’s being thrown at him which causes him trouble in class, and lives with a seemingly normal family. He has supportive parents and an older sister old enough to vote (the movie takes place in the mid-80s—the sister announces she’s voting for Dukakis). His school life is like something out of a John Hughes movie. He has an English teacher (Drew Barrymore, also credited as an executive producer) who is good enough to get herself fired, a life lessons coach who lives her life following the tapes of a motivational speaker (played by Patrick Swayze), and a girlfriend (Jena Malone) who is in the witness protection program, taking the name of Gretchen Ross because it “seemed cool.” One of the film’s best scenes is in which Donnie’s parents laugh at Donnie’s behavior at a certain point instead of scolding him.

Donnie gets visions of the future from Frank and he discovers that time travel may be involved somehow. In this new cut, we see pages of “The Philosophy of Time Travel” being shown on the screen just to see if we can understand what’s happening. I understand that there is a Tangent Universe that rarely occurs. But when it does, the world has 28 days before it flashes into nonexistence. We also get a countdown every few minutes that keeps reminding us. We wonder what could happen when time runs out. Also strangely intriguing is when Donnie can see timelines (which look like the liquid ropes from “The Abyss”) pulling people into the future. When Donnie follows his own timeline, it leads to a gun. What would he do with that gun? Then there is the case of Grandma Death, an old lady who checks her mail everyday, expecting a letter from somebody, but from whom? Then we discover that she’s the one who wrote the book about time travel and we’re thinking about where it could go from there.

Richard Kelly directs and writes with a strange, creepy mood in this sleepy small town and suburban setting as Donnie tries to piece everything together, just as we try to piece it together as well. Maybe Drew Barrymore is the six-foot rabbit or maybe not, maybe we’re in a parallel dimension throughout this movie or maybe not, but it’s such an intriguing and interesting film that we desire an explanation. It would be one thing to have somebody revealed as Frank and an explanation as to what’s happened and why. But it’s another to figure it out for ourselves. All of the clues are there in the amazing journey and we just have to piece it all together. It’s like a “Twilight Zone” episode without a Rod Serling narration to explain what happened. The performances are very strong, especially by Gyllenhaal who has to carry the movie with his odd yet appealing gawkiness.

“Donnie Darko” was already alive, original, and compelling; with the director’s cut, it is even more alive with originality and compelling energy. The pacing is just right. It allows the story to have depth and room to breathe. Like I said, I have an idea as to where everything led to but I will not give it away because of what everyone else may think. For the most part, “Donnie Darko: The Director’s Cut” is better than the original cut and I loved it.

Stephen King’s Silver Bullet (1985)

8 Apr

garey_busey

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

We can point out all the clichés in Stephen King’s supernatural stories mainly because they’re kind of fun. And a screenplay by King, based on his own “novelette,” is no exception. Indeed, we have the King-penned “Silver Bullet,” based on the novelette “Cycle of the Werewolf.” Thankfully, it’s not as awful as other film adaptations of King’s writing (see “Children of the Corn,” for example). Sure, it’s nothing special (like “Carrie” or “The Dead Zone,” for example) and at times it can get pretty stupid, but there’s a certain charm to it that makes it tolerable. You just have to suspend your disbelief.

There are many Stephen King clichés put at work here, and I suppose I shall start by counting them down:

1. A supernatural being that is never fully explained in origin (at least in the movies). In this case, it’s a werewolf—a man who becomes a vicious beast when the moon is full and invades a small town called Tarker’s Mills. Who is the man? No one knows (but you will, very soon into the movie).

2. The dumb townsfolk who are broadly developed to make the wrong, stupid decisions and get inevitably slaughtered by the monster. Some of these people are just annoying stereotypes, but others (including the local sheriff, played by Terry O’Quinn) are quite amusing, especially when they venture into the woods at night to search for the beast—one asks the other, “Are you gonna make lemonade in your pants?”

3. Alcoholic. In this case, however, the alcoholic is one of the film’s heroes. He’s Red—you know, when you name your child “Red,” are you asking for them to become drunken bums? Played with comic appeal by Gary Busey, Red is the uncle of 11-year-old Marty (Corey Haim), who is the only one who knows that a werewolf is the thing that has caused all the mayhem in town. While Red doesn’t believe that Marty was almost attacked by the werewolf, he does ask that the sheriff look more into it, now that he has a clue. And when all else fails, Red eventually goes to a local gunsmith and asking him to create a silver bullet to stop the werewolf.

Oh, and the first victim of the monster in an early scene might as well hear a sign that reads “alcoholic.” He sings the Rheingold Beer song to himself, staggers as he works the railroad, and you just know he hasn’t got a prayer. Nor does…

4. Abusive jackasses. In particular, Marty’s girlfriend has a mean-spirited father whose sole purpose is to yell and be savaged by the werewolf. No other reason whatsoever.

The only things missing here are flashback sequences and I’m not sure if Tarker’s Mills is in Maine, but I’m not ruling out the possibility.

The werewolf creature effects range from effective (when seen in glimpses in the shadows) to silly (when seen in full view). In particular, when the werewolf goes for Marty while he’s shooting off fireworks, the effect of the werewolf taking Marty’s rocket to the eye is so sloppily done, I couldn’t help but laugh. Was I supposed to laugh? I know I’m supposed to laugh because some elements are intentionally funny—like the townsfolk, the character of Uncle Red, and the neat motorcycle-like design of his new motorized wheelchair (dubbed the Silver Bullet). But what about the narration? Apparently, while the story takes place in 1976 and the film was released in 1985, we get a voiceover narration from Marty’s older sister Jane (Megan Follows), who resents her brother getting all the attention because he’s in a wheelchair—Jane is about 15, and so we should hear from her narrating as a 24-year-old woman, right? Not here—the actress they got to provide the voiceover work is obviously too proper and mature to sound that way.

There are certainly some silly moments in “Stephen King’s Silver Bullet,” but that also makes it kind of fun. Everything leads to an obligatory climax in which Marty, Jane, and Uncle Red are forced to square off against the werewolf. By this time, I was surprised to find myself caring for these three. Corey Haim and Megan Follows are convincing as a squabbling brother and sister who now have to protect each other, and Gary Busey is a riot as Uncle Red. Actually, Busey is possibly the sole character to be fully-developed—at times, he’s a drunken rascal, but he’s a good guy at heart and would never hurt his nephew who idolizes him. Uncle Red’s actions serve purpose.

Also, I should also add that Busey delivers my favorite line in the film with brilliant comedic timing—“I’m a little too old to be playing the Hardy Boys meet Reverend Werewolf!”

And while I’ve given that away, I’ve already stated that you’ll know very soon who the werewolf is before the supposed “reveal” midway through the movie, as Jane searches the town for a man or woman with one eye (because Marty fired at a rocket at the werewolf’s eye). It turns out to be Reverend Lowe (Everett McGill), who knows that Marty knows who he is, and in one scene that I’m sure is supposed to be a sick joke, actually chases down the kid in his wheelchair and attempts to run him down. As if to say even the clergyman is out to get you, kid! You don’t have a prayer!

I really shouldn’t rate “Stephen King’s Silver Bullet” three stars out of four. It is silly and sometimes pretty stupid, but also has a certain charm that makes it fun to watch. Consider it the least bad of the lesser Stephen King film adaptations and take it for what it’s worth.

Teen Wolf (1985)

8 Apr

Scene-from-Teen-Wolf-1985-001

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Teen Wolf” has a couple of good ideas and a likable leading actor, but it’s too busy trying to rebuke on old ideas from better high school movies. It’s about a high school teenager who discovers that when he gets excited or nervous, he gains wolf-like abilities, as well as full-body fur, fangs, and claws. But unlike most werewolves, his personality remains the same. It’s only his appearance and abilities that have changed.

Michael J. Fox plays the teen wolf. In the beginning of the movie, he, as teenager Scott Howard, is shown as a high school basketball player whose team is last place in the state. Gee, haven’t we seen this before? If only there was some way the team could redeem themselves in a climactic “big game”…

Yes, I was being sarcastic. “Teen Wolf” does end with a big game and it’s obvious which team is going to win.

But I digress. Scott is also insecure about himself. He’s not like his best friend Stiles (played almost over the top with slyness and can-do attitude by Jerry Levine), who is so wild and cool that he’ll pretend to surf on top of a moving van to the tune of “Surfin USA” by the Beach Boys.

Another cliché—Scott has a crush on the busty blonde girl in school and doesn’t even realize that the nice brunette girl (named Boof, whatever kind of name that is) has liked him for a long time. Don’t teenagers in movies notice anything anymore? They’re not in junior high anymore—it’s time for them to open their eyes.

Scott begins to turn into a wolf when excited and nervous while spending “seven minutes in heaven.” It turns out his dad has the same curse (actually, according to him, it’s a gift) and it runs in the family. Scott can turn into a wolf and back into a kid whenever he wants to. This brings many advantages to his high school life as he becomes popular with the nickname “Teen Wolf” and the captain of the basketball team, which suddenly has a winning streak, now that Scott’s powers make him the star player.

“Teen Wolf” has gained a cult status. I’m not (nor am I going to be) a part of that cult because this, to me, is feeble, innocuous, and doesn’t take many chances with Scott’s newly discovered wolf. And it laboriously gives us the moral of being yourself. I could have told you that. Michael J. Fox is likable in the lead role, but compare this to “Back to the Future” and he plays the same character, only this time with fangs, pointy ears, and fur. “Back to the Future” was a great movie with a tricky premise and complicated yet fun storyline. “Teen Wolf” is not a good movie because it doesn’t take as many chances as “Back to the Future.” I wish the director and writers had better story material go on for this premise.

Best Worst Movie (2010)

8 Apr

ohmygod

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When I first saw a 1990 horror film called “Troll 2,” I went through a series of emotions—confused, shocked, annoyed, depressed, and the thing is I could go on and on about how I felt about this horrible movie. “Troll 2” was hands-down the absolute worst movie I’ve ever seen, and will ever see, in my life. I thought if I ever saw a frame from that film again, I would vomit in the nearest trashcan. But then I realized, wait a minute! This is the worst film of all time! That has to be worth something, right?

I’m not exaggerating either. People all over the Internet have saved this film from obscurity by hailing it as a masterpiece. Why? Because of how much they love to hate it! “Troll 2” is now hailed as a cult classic because people love to make fun of it. Because of that, it’s even known to some as one of their favorite movies. It’s like, if you want to watch every bad movie, you might as well enjoy the absolute worst. It’s so bad that it’s infamously good.

To give my short review of “Troll 2” (which bares no resemblance to 1986’s more mediocre-than-god-awful “Troll,” by the way), besides calling it the worst film I’d ever seen, here it is—the acting and dialogue is camp at its finest, its production values are nonexistent, the effects are worse than awful, and just about everything else is done so wrong, that the entire film has to be seen to be believed. Just talking about it doesn’t help at all. Check it out sometime—I mean, if you don’t want to watch every bad movie, then watch the absolute worst.

Wow. Can’t believe I said that.

Michael Paul Stephenson, about 20 years ago, played the little protagonist, in the film, who discovered goblins (not trolls) in a small town where his family is vacationing. He hoped that being the lead in a film would bring him to child-star status. Boy, was he wrong. But now that he sees the cult phenomenon that “Troll 2” has become, he has created a documentary—entitled “Best Worst Movie,” a fitting title—chronicling the fandom behind it.

“Best Worst Movie” begins rather ordinarily, as we follow an Alabama dentist named George Hardy. George is one nice guy. People love him, people love to be around him, and even his ex-wife can’t hate him. It seems like a documentary about this sincerely nice man until “Troll 2” is brought up. George Hardy, whom everybody loves to like, had played the father in “Troll 2,” which everybody loves to hate.

George deeply appreciates the stardom that has been given to him because of his role in “Troll 2.” He was overacting as much as everybody else in the film, and what really distinguishes him from everyone else, mainly, is this one line delivery that everyone laughs so hard at—“You can’t piss on hospitality! I won’t allow it!” George shows up at almost every screening of the film, and is called up to the stage to say that line. He does, and everyone goes nuts each time.

We meet other actors from the movie. In particular, there’s Connie McFarland as the sister, Don Packard as the creepy drugstore owner, and Margo Prey as the mother. McFarland is hurt by the comments saying that she did a really bad acting job, but she understands because she knows she did a terrible job in the movie. She won’t put it on her resume, in fear of never being hired again if she mentions the title. Packard explains that he had gotten the role because the actor who was supposed to do it wasn’t able to, and so Packard just arrived on the set not too long after and did it himself. He admits that he arrived on the set courtesy of a day-release program from a mental hospital. Then there’s Margo Grey. She’s another story. When Stephenson and George show up at her house, there’s a sign saying that this woman would rather be left alone and would prefer no visitors of any kind. Because of that, they’re almost afraid to ring the doorbell because they imagine someone wielding a shotgun in front of him, or possibly shooting through the door. But Margo does welcome them into her home, even though the two are possibly unnerved by her. She never comes to a single screening of “Troll 2.”

We also meet the director Claudio Fragasso, an Italian who couldn’t speak English very well but kept insisting he understood Americans. He’s the person to point to when it comes to the reason why “Troll 2” is so bad. It’s because of this communication breakdown and a good deal of ineptitude that this production was doomed. But here’s the odd part. He doesn’t acknowledge that he made a bad film, let alone the worst of all time. He’s hurt by the audience’s constant laughter and whenever he’s called up for question-and-answer, his most basic response is, “You don’t understand nothing.” (The most memorable use of that response is when he is asked why the film is called “Troll 2” when there are no trolls in it.) He even interrupts his actors when they announce the troubles they had on set, with dialogue and acting. “You don’t understand nothing.” And nobody who was involved in the production all those years ago had the slightest clue what he was trying to do.

George Hardy remains the anchor of “Best Worst Movie.” He’s the one that Stephenson follows most of the time, as George looks forward to more screenings and goes door-to-door handing out flyers to neighbors, telling them to come down to the next one and see the film if they hadn’t already. Sometimes, he’ll even describe the film and yes he will even say his infamous line. George is also invited to film revivals and conventions. But at the bigger conventions, George is surprised to see a less-than-expected number of people showing up at the “Troll 2” stand or panel, particularly at the horror-movie convention, where everyone recognizes actors from “Nightmare on Elm Street” sequels rather than actors from “Troll 2.” George keeps trying to make himself known, by saying, “See ‘Troll 2!’ It’s the worst movie of all time!” His lack of recognition has him to say, “There’s tons of gingivitis in this room.”

George has stated that if Fragasso plans to make “Troll 2: Part II,” then George will be on board. Whether or not the other actors will remains to be seen, if the film is a go. I’m not saying I’ll see it, if that happens…but I’m not saying I won’t either.