Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Spoiler Warning!

What angers many American citizens more than most things in the world is when people of power get away with something they should be held accountable for. That was especially true of how practically the entire liberal population reacted when Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency after the Watergate scandal, as they see it, as a means to avoid responsibility. That he was pardoned by Gerald Ford made them angrier, because that meant he wouldn’t stand trial or face any consequences for what he did, let alone apologize for what he’d done. Nixon was disgraced, and he agreed to a series of four extensive television interviews with British talk show host David Frost in an attempt to win over the public. What he didn’t expect was a publicly viewed ambush…

Ron Howard’s “Frost/Nixon” is based on playwright/screenwriter Peter Morgan’s stage play of the same name, and it’s a strong, compelling retelling of real events that present a duel between an iconic figure and one who would become iconic afterwards.

Frank Langella presents a credible Nixon without foaming at the mouth in the name of exaggerating the role, which isn’t demonized. He plays a man who might regret his deeds but will try to justify them and is too stubborn to admit his wrongdoings. It’s a compelling portrayal that deserved the recognition it got, including an Academy Award nomination. But just as strong is Michael Sheen’s underrated performance as his adversary, David Frost, a boyishly charming, charismatic showman who has no interest in politics but sees this interview/duel with Nixon as a way to boost his career. Sheen’s depiction of Frost is fascinating, because he plays him as someone who is either a pure optimist or someone pretending to be a pure optimist while hiding nervousness and uncertainty behind a smile and outgoing personality. And think about it—if you had to go one-on-one on public television with one of the most controversial figures in the White House, wouldn’t you be at least a little uncertain about your chances of winning? (Asking that question made me pay more attention to Sheen’s performance the more times I watch this film.)

Frost was a TV personality who had a lot riding on this. In the first place, people considered him either crazy or stupid for even thinking of interviewing Nixon—they were sure he’d say no, and if he said yes, they were afraid he’s glamorize him. He paid a fortune to arrange the interviews when all networks wouldn’t devote airtime to serious journalism. Frost won the opportunity to do the interviews when Nixon, who (along with his advisors) thought him to be a lightweight interviewer, saw his opportunity to change the image the public saw him as. When Frost and his three allies—producer John Burt (Matthew McFayden) and reporters James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell) and Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt)—play hardball by asking difficult questions, Nixon talks his way through and out of each issue.

It seems like a done deal—with three out of four interviews in which Frost and Nixon are at a stalemate, there’s clearly no self-recognition from Nixon about Watergate, Frost is losing confidence, his friends (save for his supportive girlfriend, Caroline, played by an astonishingly beautiful Rebecca Hall) are becoming skeptical, and it looks like the final interview will amount to nothing. But Frost shocked the world when he managed to ask the right questions and get the right answers, leading to Nixon being humiliated (especially after saying the controversial quote: “I’m saying that when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”) and finally owning up to what he had done. Everyone already knew he was guilty, but they wanted to hear him say it. Thanks to Frost, he finally did. Frost became a more widely-known celebrity and Nixon was able to show his face in public again, feeling the truth had set him free.

It’s a gripping story told very well through solid direction by Howard, brilliant writing by Morgan, and excellent acting from the cast (which also includes Kevin Bacon and Toby Jones as two of Nixon’s aides). Though I have to wonder what creative liberties are taken from historic facts, I don’t let it bother me because it is such a good story and the facts shouldn’t get away from that. I know the interviews are shortened; I know certain things didn’t happen; and I’m pretty sure a late-night phone conversation between Nixon and Frost about cheeseburgers didn’t happen (I’m assuming). I don’t care. I’m enjoying “Frost/Nixon” and the battle of wits it portrays.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Spoiler Alert…but come on; you know how this story ends already.

God sent his son to spread His message. There are many ways He could’ve gotten his word across to man, but by using his son as a symbol. God so loved mankind that he made his one begotten son into a man. When Jesus rose from the grave three days after being shamed and beaten and crucified onto a wooden cross to die because of his constant spreading the message of love, that message become clear, and that’s what’s being taught in Christian teachings to this day. Renowned director Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ,” adapted by screenwriter Paul Schrader from the novel of the same name by Nikos Kazantakis, is a film that shows just how cruelly difficult it was for Jesus to carry on in becoming that symbol. Because he was both a man and the Son of God, he had the same temptations of man.

Sometimes knowing what he had to be would be hard for him to take in. But not knowing what to do made it even tougher. And with the Devil coming in many forms to steer him away from the path to delivering the message, he would even wonder what it would be like to live a normal life as a man. He had desires, thoughts, feelings; the same as any other man. And he had to resist such temptations in order to carry out his mission. What we can take from this film is that it’s “more difficult to be a good man than God.” (That’s a line Gene Siskel originally wrote in his Chicago Tribune review of this film; I’m sorry, but that’s such a good quote.)

The film (as well the book it was based on, for that matter) makes it very clear that it isn’t based entirely on the Bible and that’s more of an interpretation of what Jesus must have felt in the last days of his life. At the time of this film’s release, many religious groups have attacked the film for it, calling it “blasphemous.” (But then again, religious extremists will fire shots at any film in which God is mentioned in terms of story, like “Life of Brian” and “The Passion of the Christ,” usually when they haven’t even seen the film.) Since then, it has become widely appreciated as one of the finest religious films ever made, because it challenges audiences with questions of faith and belief and gets the message across in a very strong way, by showing what trials and tribulations Jesus had to face before fully carrying out his destiny. It’s a message that can give comfort to any sinner.

Willem Dafoe portrays Jesus—a challenging role to say the least but he pulls it off successfully. He’s a New Testament guy in an Old Testament land (in this case, the location of Morocco), where the message of love and forgiveness is not easily delivered. And it’s not easy for him either. Sometimes he doubts himself and questions whether or not he truly is the Son of God (and when he does believe, he uses it to reproach his mother and the memory of his father—ouch). When the prostitute, Mary Magdalene (Barbara Hershey), is forbidden to attend a wedding, Jesus has to be as calm as possible in order to rationally bring her in. Sometimes, he’ll confide in Judas (Harvey Keitel, possibly the film’s weak link—I didn’t buy him entirely in this role), who is portrayed as a better man than most teachings have made him out to be (and his name becoming a curse doesn’t help either)—here, he’s a man doing what he thinks he’s supposed to do.

It all leads to the most controversial sequence of the film. Jesus is crucified on the cross, in extreme pain, listening to those around him either berating him or screaming in pain, and he starts to hallucinate and imagine what it would be like if he was taken down from the cross and able to live out the rest of his life as a regular human being. He marries Mary Magdelene, has a family, and lives a full life. But he is also shamed by his former followers, who claim he abandoned his mission and say they don’t know what to believe anymore. Jesus soon finds the strength to shake off his temptation and return to the cross, where he will die as God’s son and come back to deliver the last piece of the message.

Scorsese, who was raised Catholic, is hardly a strange choice to make “The Last Temptation of Christ,” since a good chunk of his films are about flawed people seeking redemption. He knew he was taking a big risk with the Christian right, and he even received death threats and had to arrange private, secure screenings for critics before the film’s release. But he’s a skilled filmmaker, as well as a believer, and those who see the film for what it is can appreciate what he put into it.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I won’t issue a Spoiler Alert, because the story of Philippe Petit walking a tightrope across the Twin Towers is very well-known.

Early in the morning of August 7^th, 1974, an amazing occurrence/performance happened at the original World Trade Center. French acrobat Philippe Petit walked on a tightrope that spanned from the top of one tower to the top of the other—a 200-foot length over a thousand feet in the air! He spent a little over a half-hour performing his “walk,” with many New Yorkers watching from the ground. He risked life and limb with no harness to support him and no safety net to catch him if he fell. You could call it paid-off training crossed with instincts or a miracle, but what Petit did up there was incredible.

There was already a documentary made about the event, called “Man on Wire,” but director Robert Zemeckis (known for such well-crafted works such as “Back to the Future,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” “Forrest Gump,” “Cast Away,” “Flight”) decided to use his skills with camera angles and digital effects to recreate the performance in “The Walk,” a fictional retelling that goes into Petit’s origins, his team’s efforts in helping plan the “coup,” and ultimately his famous “walk.”

The film is split in three segments. The first segment is somewhat biographical, as Petit (played with energetic charisma by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whose French accent is mildly distracting at first but grows on you quickly) doesn’t like to think about “death.” When he’s on the wire, performing on the streets of Paris, he claims he never feels more alive. When he hears about the Twin Towers in New York City, he immediately thinks of the perfect place for his “wire.” While in training, under master wire walker Master Rudy (Ben Kingsley), he meets people like his partner in crime (and in love) Annie (Charlotte Le Bon), photographer Jean-Louis (Clement Sibony), and math teacher Jeff (Cesar Domboy), who has a fear of heights—they all become his accomplices as he plans a heist at the Twin Towers. It’s a different kind of heist: a mission to steal a moment in time.

The second segment leads up to the “walk,” as Petit and company go to New York, gain more accomplices, and put their plan into motion. There is much suspense involved when the gang is attempting at night to get the wire ready by morning and in danger of being caught at any time. (And of course, there must be at least two moments in which the acrophobic Jeff has to face his fears—a cheap shot but effective nonetheless.)

Then comes the actual walk, about an hour-and-a-half into this two-hour film. This is unquestionably the film’s highlight. Do I even need to say how fantastic it looks? It’s Robert Zemeckis making a reenactment of Philippe Petit’s famous Wire Walk—knowing his reputation for great-looking craft, I knew this was going to be something special. And I have to admit, as someone who is terrified of heights, watching this was so effective that I cringed and held onto my seat in fear. (Though, I did at first see it in a theater, and my second viewing, on a laptop screen, wasn’t nearly as effective. But it still looks good.)

Many critics have complained that the film has too much buildup to its final act, but honestly, I didn’t mind. I enjoyed getting to know Petit’s origins, his friends are appealing company, and the film is consistently good-looking, with numerous camera tricks and neat effects that occur even before the walk, such as passages of time. I also admired how Zemeckis executed the film much like a spy thriller, with the characters scoping out the layout of the Trade Center, trading secrets, and sneaking in to perform the ultimate task. Whatever problems you may have with “The Walk” may be counterbalanced by the final act alone, which is truly a spectacle to behold. But do yourself a favor, find the biggest screen you can, and watch it on that.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

With a title like “10 Cloverfield Lane,” you would expect a direct sequel to the 2008 hit, “Cloverfield,” which was hidden in secrecy until release and has seen gained a following (just as this new movie was—even its first trailer wasn’t released until two months before the film’s release). But if you walk into the movie expecting it to be just like “Cloverfield,” you’d be disappointed. “10 Cloverfield Lane” is instead a thriller that may or may not have any relation to “Cloverfield,” aside from J.J. Abrams’ production company, Bad Robot, carrying both films. The great thing about keeping this film in secrecy is that you don’t know what to expect, and as a result, you find yourself surprised and able to appreciate the film for its own merits if you’re willing to keep an open mind. “10 Cloverfield Lane” only slightly ties back to the earlier movie, such as a line about “satellites” that may be familiar to those who have a theory about a subtle visual at the end of “Cloverfield.” Anything else might be implied (and that’s all I’ll say about that).

Mostly, however, “10 Cloverfield Lane” is a tense, claustrophobic thriller set inside a basement/bunker under a farmhouse. We’re kept in that area for a majority of the film. Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) awakens inside, chained to the wall. She learns from her “host,” a hulking, discomforting man named Howard (John Goodman), that he rescued her from a car crash and that he can’t let her or another occupant, Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) go because something apocalyptic seems to have happened up top. “An attack,” he calls it. Michelle learns Howard is a survivalist and believes he might be crazy, but with every possibility comes something to turn it around, leaving Michelle not knowing what to think. And there’s always something about Howard that makes Michelle even more afraid of him. She’s afraid to go outside but even more afraid of staying inside…

The premise is intriguing, and director Dan Trachtenberg (making his feature debut here) does a lot with it within these confined spaces of tight areas of this basement. He doesn’t let the audience know what’s really happening outside, if there even is something happening—is there really something to fear in the world or is Michelle being held captive by this madman? There are numerous deceptions whenever we may have something figured out, leaving us guessing numerously what’s really happening and keeping us on edge with several tense scenes. What’s going on? Who is Howard, really? What does this certain thing in this place mean for us? What are those noises outside? And so on. The film is a terrific thriller because of this. It even reminded me of the mystery-shrouded first couple seasons of Bad Robot’s TV series, “Lost,” and that’s a compliment indeed.

What it does answer by the end is answered subtly for the most part; others are left suitably ambiguous; and then, there’s the final act which will appease probably the most antsy moviegoer who wants some form of closure. I won’t give it away here, but I would be lying if I said that I probably didn’t need to see it, especially since the buildup to it was so darn good (and had me thinking this was going to be the best film of the year so far). It’s a little disjointed while not necessarily “disappointing.” (I may have to see the film a second time to look back at the hints and clues I know were present at times during the film.) It doesn’t hurt the film as much as I thought it did when I walked out—a few hours later, I had thought more about it and felt I should’ve seen it coming from the moment I bought my ticket stub. It’s a little difficult to explain in this review, since it’s spoiler-free, but I think the best way to describe it is this: “10 Cloverfield Lane” works better as its own thriller than as a “blood-relative” to “Cloverfield” (Abrams’ words).

Effectively done filmmaking aids in the film’s favor, with smooth camera movements adding to the increased tension. But also essential is the acting from the three principals. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is strong in a role that is a rarity in horror movies: a heroine who is smart. You know how most horror-movie protagonists make dumb decisions that lead to audience members wanting to shout advice to them through the screen? (“Call the police!” “Get out of the house!” Etc.) I only felt the need to do that once with her (ONCE), and then she immediately did what I wanted her to do at that moment! From the moment she awakens in her strange surroundings for the first time, you’re with her, thinking of what you would do if you were chained to that wall and had to get to your cellphone on the other side of the room. Then there’s John Goodman, one of film’s finest character actors, as Howard—he is nothing short of brilliant in this role. He has to go back and forth between a kind teddy bear of a guy and a scary, dangerous madman, and he pulls off each transition perfectly. John Gallagher Jr. has less to do as sort-of “the other guy,” but he holds his own fine.

I may have my own problems with the ending of “10 Cloverfield Lane,” but what leads up to it is a masterful, suspenseful thriller that makes me look over a nitpick like that. Overall the film is terrific, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the film again in order to be sure of whether or not my feelings toward the final act are altered.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

You know the setup, you saw the trailer, you’ve seen movies like this before: a seemingly mild person identifies himself/herself to an average family but soon becomes violently dangerous, resulting in a deadly battle between them. You think you might be able to guess where filmmaker-actor Joel Edgerton’s “The Gift” is going, right?

Wrong.

“The Gift” may seem like it’s going in that direction, but what you may have heard about it is certainly not the case. I’ll explain the setup before I get to what I mean by that:

Newlyweds Simon (Jason Bateman) and his wife, Robyn (Rebecca Hall), move to a nice new place in Southern California after Simon receives a new job nearby. Soon after they settle in, they meet an old friend of Simon’s from high school: an oddball named Gordo (Joel Edgerton, who also wrote and directed the film). He wants to restart a friendship with Simon, though Simon says they were never close to begin with. But Gordo sends the couple gifts to win their friendship and even starts inserting himself in places where they don’t want him. Robyn doesn’t mind much, but Simon just wants him to go away. He lets Gordo know this in unkind terms, which results in Gordo reacting impulsively and unpredictably.

I didn’t see the film’s trailer, as most people have (and reacted negatively too, especially after actually seeing the movie), and so while I didn’t know what the trailer revealed, I did have some idea from other movies of this sort where this was going to go. Even though I was half-right, I was also…half-wrong (duh). The situation is familiar and recognizable, but when I thought I was getting one thing, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself getting another entirely. That has to do with the ways Edgerton tweaks with the story and makes it more of a story about how whatever wrong you’ve done in the past followed by the insistence not to own up to it and confess eventually will come up and ruin your life. I won’t give away how “The Gift” gets that across (and wonderfully so, I might add), but let’s just say that karma will come and get you when you least expect it.

The filmmaking involved is also impressive, with very carefully constructed execution by Edgerton. Edgerton proves himself worthy as a filmmaker and also turns in a performance that is also creepy and chilling but also strangely sympathetic when you learn more about his character. That’s all I’ll say about him.

Rebecca Hall is suitably vulnerable as a woman who doesn’t know as much about her husband’s past as she thinks she does. And speaking of her husband, Jason Bateman is perfectly cast as a person who can seem charming and likable but also slimy and apathetic, showing he has some things to hide…

The themes of “The Gift” are damage and karma. Secrets are kept from everybody, everyone is damaged in one way or another, and in some way, when the film builds to a haunting finale, the past will come back to haunt you for the rest of your life. “The Gift” works wonderfully as a dramatic thriller. I wish I could tell you more about exactly why it works, but I will leave it for you to discover its secrets for yourself, because it is worthy of checking out. It may even force you to think back to your own past and wonder if there are any secrets of your own that you should own up to…

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

For those who aren’t familiar with director Penelope Spheeris’ trilogy of “Decline of Western Civilization” films, I’ll give a little background. The first “Decline of Western Civilization” film was a documentary about the Los Angeles punk rock scene, featuring concert footage of punk bands and interviews with band members and their audiences, giving a glimpse into the subculture the music created. It filmed through 1979 and 1980 and released in 1981. The film became a cult hit, which led to Spheeris making a sequel, this one about the heavy metal scene of 1986-1988: “The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years.” (Nearly a decade later, a third chapter was made about the gutter punk lifestyle of homeless teenagers of L.A. ‘90s.)

“The Metal Years” uses the same approach as the previous film—a straightforward, constructive, unblinking view of a subcultural phenomenon. But there’s something different about this approach. While interview subjects in the first film could make wild comments at times, the amount of “out-there” these people bring to their interviews doesn’t merely make “The Metal Years’ an in-depth portrait; it also makes it a comedy, with randomly hilarious moments in which these “metalheads” seeking fame and fortune use their egos to unintentionally embarrass themselves on camera.

The reason for their directness may be because director Spheeris is definitely not afraid to ask these people the right questions. And when I say “the right questions,” I mean the questions we might be afraid to ask ourselves; the kind of questions that would seem “rude” to many other people. Whether it’s about groupies, over-ambition, addiction, ethics, economics, or whatever, Spheeris asks these direct questions to get the honest answers she seeks, and she has apparently earned enough trust from her subjects to receive them. Among the questions are: “What do you think parents think about you?” “Are you in it for the chicks?” “What if you don’t make it as a rock star?” “Where do you see yourself in 10 years?”

Among Spheeris’ interview subjects are famous musicians such as Aerosmith, Ozzy Osbourne, Alice Cooper, Dave Mustaine and Paul Stanley, but her initial focus is on unknown bands (some of whom are still unknown today, unsurprisingly), including London, Odin, Seduce, among others; the film has them talk about their desperate quests to stardom and how confident they are that they’ll each make it as a rock star. Many of the answers they give to Spheeris’ blatant questions are fun to listen to just because of how egotistical they are.

It’s nice to get different views on the lifestyle, from those who want to go through certain elements of the lifestyle to those who already have. Among the latter is the somewhat voice of sanity in the form of Ozzy Osbourne, who is seen here as rehabilitated and talking about success while making breakfast in his comfortable home. And there are also those who seemingly haven’t learned much from experience, as Steven Tyler of Aerosmith boasts about his musical and sexual flairs. (By the way, as funny as the movie is, it’s funnier for music buffs looking at this movie from 1988, knowing what they know in 2016.) And then there’s the former, who just desire to be famous, even if it means, according to one subject, “going down in history like Jim Morrison.” They don’t even like to get real jobs because they’re so convinced they’ll be famous sometime soon—they’re that convinced it’s inevitable.

The film is a cult-classic also for its scenes that show rock star excess. There’s a sequence including middle-aged club owner Bill Gazzarri, whose “sexy rock n’ roll dance contest” is now called sleazy and sexist; some of the subjects talk about how women, especially groupies, are portrayed unfairly in the metal scene; Aerosmith talks about spending millions of dollars on drugs; and so on. The most haunting interview occurs late in the film, with Chris Holmes of W.A.S.P., who inadvertently presents the other (darker) side of partying. He’s interviewed in a swimming pool, with his mother sitting in a lawn chair nearby. He slurs and stumbles throughout the interview as he was heavily drunk, admits to being a “full-blown alcoholic,” pours a bottle of vodka over himself, all while his mother watches with discomfort. It’s the most striking sequence in the film.

The film may be dubbed “Part II,” but it can easily be seen on its own. And even if you don’t care about heavy metal of the mid-to-late-‘80s, there’s sure to be something in this documentary that will entertain people today. And when you’re not laughing at these unusual behaviors and straightforward comments, you may also learn some illuminating, interesting information about the pursuit of fame and fortune, which is still relevant in our lives today.