Archive by Author

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

11 Feb

star-trek-the-motion-picture

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Star Trek,” the TV series created by Gene Roddenberry, is a delight. It’s a great mixture of neat science fiction, creative ideas, and memorable characters. No one would ever link it to something like “Star Wars,” which is about nonstop sci-fi action and thrills. With “Star Trek,” the characters and story always came first. It’s not about tense action and stunning visuals. And what “Star Trek” is certainly not is an out-of-body experience, like Stanley Kubrick’s great sci-fi epic “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Unfortunately, when world-renowned director Robert Wise decided to direct a first film adaptation of the series, he thought to bring to appeal to the “2001” or “Star Wars” crowd, since elements of each film are noticeable. When you put them both together, it kind of distracts from the notion that you’re watching a “Star Trek” movie, and the first one, at that. Even though it has its moments that feel like a “Star Trek” union, the film has a lot of moments that make the film as a whole into a grand space opera. At times, it’s thought-provoking and visually impressive, but mostly, it’s a bore. It has a slow pace and doesn’t even try to give us a rousing adventure, let alone that “Star Trek” lighthearted character interaction that was the best part of the show.

Instead, we have long (and I mean LONG) sequences in which we’re supposed to marvel at something. They are long, slow, and undoubtedly supposed to create for us a visual marvel and an out-of-body experience. The tone of this film is all wrong. Those memorable characters, including Admiral Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, and such, are trapped in a “2001” wannabe, and are not at home here.

I can’t fault the technical aspects of “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”—the visuals are outstanding, the special effects are top-notch, and the Jerry Goldsmith music score that pulses throughout this movie has a haunting feel. And in keeping in spirit with “Star Trek,” there are some clever ideas here. In particular, the central conflict—a space anomaly known as V’ger—is pretty interesting as it makes its way with destruction, and Kirk and crew have to find it and face it. Actually, once we get to the reality of V’ger, the movie finally starts to feel like a “Star Trek” story some of the time. The origin of V’ger produces some food for thought.

But when you have to stare at the visuals and listen to that music score for minutes at a time, you care less and wonder why anyone thought to create “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” with this sort of treatment. The result is a sometimes-intriguing but mostly-sleep-inducing mess that results in an out-of-body experience into dreamland. Those expecting a “2001” kind of movie is obviously not a “Star Trek” fan; those expecting a “Star Wars” type of movie is going to be disappointed; and those expecting a “Star Trek” movie will be disheartened.

Jack (1996)

11 Feb

427

Smith’s Verdict: **
Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Jack” is a movie about a little boy trapped in an older man’s body. However, it’s not through a magical occurrence, like in “Big,” but through a rare medical condition that causes a kid’s cells to accelerate four times the normal rate. At age 10, he looks like a full-grown 40-year-old man. That’s the setup for “Jack” and it’s a nice one that could have resulted in an engaging drama. But as it is, it’s one of the clumsiest lost opportunities I’ve seen. While there are a few cute moments in the movie, there are many moments that are unnecessary, others that are uncomfortable, and worst of all, moments that are uncomfortably unnecessary.

Robin Williams is admittedly an ideal casting choice for the title role of Jack, the little boy in a grown man’s body. I guess that’s because Williams, a comic known for his goofy antics, never seems to have grown up. He’s like a live-action cartoon that only takes time to relax when held in check. It’d make sense that he portray the role in this movie.

The movie begins with Jack’s birth. He’s fully-developed after a two-month pregnancy and it turns out that he has an unusual internal clock. He will age four times as fast as a normal person. Ten years later, Jack has been mostly kept in the house by his loving parents (Diane Lane and Brian Kerwin) as other kids his age stare at his bedroom window, thinking he’s a “freak.” His home-school teacher Mr. Woodruff (Bill Cosby) thinks it’s time for Jack to go to public school, but Mom is scared that Jack will never fit in with the other kids, since he’ll be the only one in the fifth grade that shaves.

They of course decide to give Jack a chance to see how well he adjusts to school. At first, he’s picked on by the other students and has a miserable first day. But the next day, the other kids discover that he’s a good basketball center and can also help them out with other favors, like picking up a “Penthouse” magazine without any sort of ID. “I just don’t shave for a day so I look like I’m 50,” Jack explains. He has a new best friend in a kid named Louie (Adam Zolotin), who invites him join in with his treehouse club.

The low point of the movie is a subplot involving Louie’s trampy mother, played by Fran Drescher. Jack meets her while posing as the school principal as a favor to Louie. In that scene, it’s uncomfortable with the misunderstandings, as Drescher’s character doesn’t know that Williams’ character isn’t a grown man and is yet flirting with him. Robin Williams doesn’t really play the scene as a 10-year-old would, it seems more like lines from failed versions of his standup. And Fran Drescher is as irritating as you imagine she’d be outside of TV. That’s not the end of her character, however. There’s an entire sequence that lasts about twenty minutes that features him meeting up with her in a bar where she works as a waitress. There’s more uneasy flirtation going on, more misunderstandings, and of course, a bar fight. This sequence doesn’t have anything to do with the rest of the movie. Take it (and Fran Drescher) out of the movie, and you wouldn’t miss a thing.

There’s also a great deal of awkwardness in a scene in which Jack attempts to ask his pretty fifth grade teacher Mrs. Marquez (Jennifer Lopez) to the school dance. How am I supposed to feel during that scene? Am I supposed to laugh, because Jack looks like a grown man when we know he isn’t and he’s asking out his cute school teacher? Is this a dramatic moment? I wasn’t sure of it.

I think the movie might have been more effective if it focused on Jack’s mortality. There are moments when you think they’re going to dig deeper into it (there’s a deep moment in which Jack is asked what he wants to be when he grows up—“Alive”), but there’s never a big dramatic payoff.  When the movie was over, I didn’t feel anything or learn anything. I mainly saw pointless moments and forced comedy with obvious payoffs. It’s like they thought why look more into Jack’s internal clock when there’s a bar fight to commence? Or why go further into the kids’ introduction to “Penthouse” when their treehouse can collapse? And of course, we have Robin Williams in a classroom asked to take a seat in a small wooden desk—let’s break it! Then let’s do it again! See, while they’re thinking that, I’m thinking, “Really? This was directed by the great Francis Ford Coppola?”

Francis Ford Coppola, I imagine, wants to try something new with his films, like every filmmaker should. So, one shouldn’t be necessarily surprised to see his name attached to a director’s credit in “Jack.” However, it’s necessary to surprised to see his name because of how inept the movie is. It has some cute moments (such as when Jack is sharing his Gummi Bears with his teacher, or Jack is hanging out with his friends, and a rare few others) as well as moments of appropriate drama (like that “Alive” moment I mentioned, as well as Mr. Woodruff’s speech about why Jack is so special), but as a whole, “Jack” isn’t what we expect from a great director like Coppola, and doesn’t even come close.

Ruthless People (1986)

11 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If I had to pick my favorite Danny DeVito role, it would probably be rich businessman Sam Stone in “Ruthless People.” DeVito plays the villain that you love to hate—a man so ruthless that he would even cheer at the thought of his own wife dead. In fact, that’s what he’s talking about in the very first scene of “Ruthless People”—he’s telling his mistress Carol (Anita Morris) that he’s planning to swiftly do away with his annoying wife Barbara (Bette Midler). We find out that Sam married her just for her money, and if he kills her, he’ll gain her late father’s inheritance.

This is a vile man. He’s selfish, shallow, and ruthless. But he’s so earnest and passionate in his schemes and purposes that you can’t help but admire DeVito for making this villainous character so entertaining.

“Ruthless People” has the comic premise of Sam’s wife actually being kidnapped before Sam has a chance to do her in (he planned to fill her with chloroform and hurl her off a cliff). He gets a call from the kidnappers who threaten to kill her if he doesn’t pay the ransom. Watch his face as he listens to every detail and knows that his wife could be killed if he doesn’t meet their demands—this is his dream come true! He’s not supposed to tell the police; he tells the police and the story hits the news. He’s told to pay the ransom; he doesn’t.

But the kidnappers, as it turns out, are inane at their title. They’re actually a nice suburban couple (Judge Reinhold and Helen Slater) who kidnap Sam’s wife Barbara for reasons of ruthlessness. Reinhold’s Ken decides that they both need to be ruthless to succeed in this world, and holds a grudge against Sam for stealing spandex designs from his wife Sandy (Slater) and passing them off as his own, and becoming very rich because of them. Now they want their share and hold Barbara hostage until Sam pays the ransom…. Yeah, that’s not gonna happen.

This is a simple idea of a nagging wife being kidnapped and her husband doesn’t want her back. It’s stretched out into a very funny comedy with charismatic acting and a sharp screenplay brough to life by the three-man directing team of Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker—the same guys who made “Airplane.” This script is full of funny jokes and does a good job of making the story be as complicated as it can with this premise, just barely going over-the-top with its conclusion (a standard car chase). I don’t want to give away most of the gags, because that takes away the elements of surprise in this movie.

Bette Midler’s Barbara has a great share of screen time, and I’m sorry I forgot to talk about her. Midler is hilarious in this movie, making her character as stubborn as possible while being held by these two nice losers. She starts out as a shouting whiner (which I know you’d expect, since we first see her in a bag and her mouth is gagged), and then delights in teasing her captors, sometimes intimidating them by saying she’s going to turn them in later, and driving them crazy. Later on, though, she does soften up and even befriends Sandy, and she delivers the funniest line in the movie when she realizes that the ransom number has decreased. I won’t write what it is; just see the movie. Trust me—it’s worth it.

An amusing subplot involves Sam’s mistress Carol as she attempts to blackmail Sam by having him give her all the money, or else she turns him in for killing Barbara. But due to a series of hilarious misunderstandings, she and her buffoonish lover (Bill Pullman, hilarious) find themselves in many unsuccessful attempts to do so. That is all I am going to say about that. Period.

One failing in “Ruthless People,” besides the conclusion, is that there is no dueling confrontation between DeVito and Midler. We only see them together once, to deliver a weak punchline to the story, and I would have liked to see them really have it out with each other.

With some big laughs, game performances, and a very funny screenplay by Dale Launer, “Ruthless People” is a goofy, hilarious movie about…ruthless people. They’re ruthless, but they’re likable and memorable. DeVito is a joy to watch as the lovable villain, Midler is suitably stubborn, Reinhold and Slater are pretending to be ruthless but are truthfully nice enough for us to like them, and Morris and Pullman are hilariously idiotic. They help make “Ruthless People” a very funny movie.

The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)

10 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The 1957 science-fiction film “The Incredible Shrinking Man,” written by Richard Matheson (based on his novel), takes the idea of an ordinary person exploring an alien planet, and brings it closer to home. This is a story in which a man is continuing to shrink with each passing day until he is so small that his own home becomes a whole new, treacherous world for him. It’s a clever idea, executed wonderfully (and effectively) in “The Incredible Shrinking Man,” with a great sense of danger and adventure, as well as some nicely-done special effects.

It begins as Scott Carey (Grant Williams) and his wife Louise (Randy Stuart) are on vacation at sea when Scott is enveloped in a radioactive mist. Since then, his clothes don’t fit, he’s losing weight, and worst of all, he’s losing height. Every day, he keeps getting smaller. Several weeks later, he is the size of a small boy as he becomes famous (and known as the Incredible Shrinking Man), while the doctors are searching for a cure.

The first half is mainly about how Scott and Louise deal with this strange phenomenon surrounding Scott, and it’s exceedingly well-done. You really feel the pain that each of them are going through, with Scott being regarded as a freak and Louise feeling helpless to him. It’s acted with a great deal of conviction, given the material—the best example is when the camera is focused on the back of an armchair while Louise and Scott’s brother Charlie (Paul Langton) are talking; the revealing shot of the diminutive Scott, sitting in the armchair, is most effective not because of the effect, but because of the blank expression of Grant Williams’ face. The melancholic situation becomes even clearer.

Then, we reach the second half of “The Incredible Shrinking Man,” which transforms the film into an adventure story. Scott is now small enough to live in a dollhouse and Louise walking about the house becomes too much for him to handle. Then, when Louise leaves the house for a little while, something unexpected happens. The family housecat comes into the house and attacks Scott, chasing him about the house until he reaches the cellar, where he is accidentally and ultimately trapped. Louise comes back to believe that the cat has eaten Scott and so no one is going to come down to the cellar looking for him, leaving Scott to endure the new world he has brought himself into.

The film is advertised with the tagline, “A Fascinating Adventure Into the Unknown!” I would have to agree. Scott is inside the cellar, he can’t climb the stairs, he calls for help but no one can hear him, and the floor expands like a vast wasteland. He gets water from a leaking boiler (drops are the sizes of golf balls), he now lives in a matchbox, he has to get food from a mouse trap and high atop a cabinet that towers over him, and he is menaced by a tarantula loose in the cellar. It’s a treacherous new world that is of course Scott’s from a different scale.

The giant sets are (forgive the pun) largely convincing and really make you believe that there is a tiny man in a giant world. And the suspense of the second half, as Scott braves this unknown land, really comes through. The adventure keeps building and building as it goes along, with Scott scaling the walls, crossing a Grand Canyon-type of pit, and eventually doing battle with the spider.

Throughout the movie, we get a close look at Scott’s psyche, so that we understand his plight and sympathize with him. Much of this element is further improved in the final few minutes, as Scott is coming to terms with the idea that he will shrink into nothing…or will he? The film ends with an inner monologue (one of the best acting monologues, in my opinion), in which Scott now accepts his fate and looks forward to an adventure in an even smaller realm and beyond. He believes that no matter how small he will get, he will never become nothing and will still matter in the universe, thus ending his fears of future shrinking. This is not, nor has it ever been, a standard miniature-adventure story. There’s a psychological element to it that makes it special—exploring power and acceptance. That ending is just fantastic. I’m pleasantly surprised that the writers really had it in them to do this instead of taking the easy way out.

Let Me In (2010)

10 Feb

LET ME IN

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

This was not supposed to happen—I was not supposed to receive much from a remake of a great movie that came out almost two years after the original. I was a big fan of the original Swedish film “Let the Right One In” and so, I had my doubts about this American remake entitled “Let Me In,” directed by Matt Reeves, whose previous directorial effort was 2008’s “Cloverfield.” This new movie is faithful to the original, but a few changes have been made to make it even more effective. Those who saw the original film and see this new one will know the changes I’m talking about. But I was far from offended. I think these changes helped the story a lot. For example, the motives of the adult “father” to the vampire girl (for those who haven’t seen or heard of the original, I’ll get to the vampire part soon) are explained more clearly…but also in a subtle way. In the original film, I didn’t quite understand the relationship of the little vampire girl and her adult guardian who could be her father but then again could not be. There are a couple of scenes in this remake that explain it a bit more and then there is one shot that sums everything up—it involves a picture, that’s all I will say. I was satisfied by this subtle explanation—in fact, I was satisfied by a lot of elements in “Let Me In.”

The storyline remains the same in “Let Me In.” Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee, the talented young actor from “The Road”) is a twelve-year-old, lonely boy who is severely bullied by sadistic bullies at school. When he is alone, he repeats the bullies’ dialogue as he stabs a tree multiple times. This brings the attention of a mysterious girl that just moved in the apartment next door to him—her name is Abby (played by Chloe Grace Moretz, “Kick-Ass”) and she is a vampire. She lives with a middle-aged man (reliable character actor Richard Jenkins) who is believed to be her “father” but maybe something more, as we see in a few key scenes. Owen and Abby become great friends and their relationship is dangerous because Owen doesn’t know that Abby is a vampire—he doesn’t know that The Father kills for blood in order to feed Abby. But Abby would never let anything happen to Owen and she gives him the strength that he needs.

I was intrigued by the relationship of these two twelve-year-old kids in the original film and I am just as intrigued here. Unlike the relationship between Bella and Edward Cullen in the Twilight Saga, this is a relationship that actually feels real and risky—there is no sex in this movie, but there are sensuous moments in which Abby goes into Owen’s bed while naked (no nudity is shown) and other moments when Owen and Abby share warm hugs when they realize they need each other. This relationship never states that dating a vampire is fun and games—it could be dangerous.

These two kids live in a dangerous world where bad things can and will happen. I mentioned the bullies’ sadistic behavior. These kids are more brutal than the kids in the original film and that’s quite an accomplishment indeed—we get many nasty scenes of the bullies’ terrible behavior. They pull his underwear up so tight that he wets himself, the leader of the bullies strikes him hard across the face with a pointer stick, and they try to push him into a hole in an icy pond. But that’s Owen’s problem. Abby’s problem is that she needs blood to eat in order to survive. This leaves opportunity for horror elements—The Father is killing innocent people and draining them of their blood to put it into a jug. There’s one scene that is absolutely incredible—I’m not going to give much away, but it involves The Father’s latest victim of murder in a car. The outcome of this scene is the best movie car wreck I’ve seen in a long, long time, seen through an unmoving POV shot inside the car! This is an absolutely fantastic shot. There are many other shots that are great, but that’s because director Matt Reeves drops his “Cloverfield” style of directing (camera shaking for intensity) and focuses on what is most important in the shots. He even goes as far as keeping Owen’s stressed, divorced mother (Cara Buono) out of focus throughout her scenes. He knows it’s more important to capture Owen’s expressions in these scenes, and we can hear Mom’s suffering in her voice when she talks to Dad on the phone. This is one of the best-looking movies of 2010; wonderfully well-made.

This movie is set in 1983, which leaves many Reagan-era touches, such as Ms. Pac Man and songs by Blue Oyster Cult. Most notably are the haunting references to the candy Now and Later, as well as Reagan’s television speeches about good and evil. Suitably, there is a character known only as The Detective (Elias Koteas) who goes through town investigating the murders, believing it to be the work of “Satanists.” A word about the new character of The Detective—I do admit that the town-adult subplots in the original film seemed unnecessary with a somewhat weak payoff. If you recall the original, you recall the woman who is turned into a vampire and the husband who is investigating what is happening when his friends are murdered. The latter is transformed into The Detective for “Let Me In” and we only see him (and the woman, of course) when we absolutely need to.

Aside from how great-looking and well-developed the story is in “Let Me In,” what will really draw the most attention are the excellent performances from the actors. Kodi Smit-McPhee, who was very effective as the little boy in a damaged world in “The Road,” is a boy in a world that may as well be damaged. We believe in Owen, we care for him, and we want things to go well for him. This is a kid we definitely don’t want bad things to happen to. Even more effective about his performance is his reaction shots—when he’s not talking, he listens and learns important things about this situation. In the first most effective terrifying moment in the final half, we feel his fear. Also very strong is Chloe Grace Moretz as Abby. Moretz gave “Kick-Ass” its energy (and controversy, I know) and in “Let Me In,” she plays an even more complicated character and pulls it off. Richard Jenkins, who doesn’t have much dialogue, lets us know what he’s thinking with just his expressions and the intensity in his murders.

To me, “Let Me In” is one of the best movies of 2010. It’s definitely the best remake of the year—a step or two above the remake of “The Karate Kid,” which I liked. Yes, we’ve seen vampire romance many times before and we have the original film, but “Let Me In” is a lot better than you might expect. For one thing, it doesn’t treat this relationship with sexuality but with the loneliness of childhood as these kids are on the brink of adolescence. Don’t be expecting a “vampire movie” if you see this movie. Expect something a lot more.

NOTE: I should also mention that there are some genuinely terrifying moments in “Let Me In,” the two most effective come in the film’s final half. I won’t go into the first one, but I will say this about the second one—if you’ve seen the original film, you know there is a swimming pool scene. If you were terrified of that scene in the original, there is a chance you will breathe heavily and recoil in your seat in the theater…I did.

Chronicle (2012)

10 Feb

Dane-DeHaan-in-Chronicle-2012-Movie-Image1

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Chronicle” mixes a superhero origin story with a teenage coming-of-age drama and presents it in a first-person perspective. If that doesn’t sound like an ambitious project, I don’t know what does. “Chronicle” is a well-made movie, and it was thoroughly entertaining. Just when I thought I was getting tired of the first-person perspective (I’ve seen it in “Blair Witch Project,” “Cloverfield,” “District 9,” every episode of “The Office,” and don’t get me started on the “Paranormal Activity” series), “Chronicle” sneaked up on me. I say this because I avoided the trailers and TV spots for this movie and knew hardly anything of the plot, except that it was played as if it was actually documented and there was a poster that looked like a kid was giving a thundercloud the middle finger. I wasn’t anxious to see this movie, but I did the immature thing and gave in to peer pressure. What I saw was a film that has a lot more on its mind than you might expect.

The film’s story is seen through a video camera, though not just the main character’s camera. Sometimes, we see through a v-logger’s camera, and other times, we see through surveillance cameras or any camera that comes into the scene. The film stars a high school senior named Andrew (Dane DeHaan), who is shy, awkward, and standoffish. Girls ignore him, jerks pick on him, and he only has one friend—his popular cousin Matt (Alex Russell). Also, his mother is dying and he’s the constant punching bag of an abusive father who drinks a lot. Andrew has bought a video camera and documents his home life and his high school, though really that makes him even more awkward.

Matt brings Andrew to a rave party, where they and another kid—Steve (Michael B. Jordan), the big man on campus running for class president—stumble across a hole in the ground nearby. It’s circular, seems to tunnel underground, and gets deeper and deeper as the three boys explore.

Now, would you step into something like that? I didn’t think so.

But they do, and Andrew brings along his camera. They come across a strange object, which, because it glows, may give the possibility that it’s alien. The boys are exposed to a kind of force that destroys Andrew’s camera. But luckily, Andrew buys a new camera and we see that a few days have gone by and the boys suddenly possess powers of the mind. They throw baseballs at each other’s chests so they can stop them in mid-air before they get hit. They build a tower out of their Legos without touching them. They start a leaf blower to lift up cheerleaders’ skirts. They play pranks in a department store (like bringing a teddy bear to life in front of a little girl). They can even move themselves up in the air!

They have a lot of fun with their new talents and behave like teenagers while fiddling with them because…they are teenagers. But these kids have no adult mentors (as most superhero stories do) to tell them how to use their powers responsibly. However, Matt decides to lay down some rules after Andrew’s irresponsibility nearly kills someone. This is the start of the dark, disturbing plot thread that follows Andrew’s tortured personal life to something really dangerous. Later in the movie, after being humiliated at a party, he addresses to the camera that he’s evolved into something better than he was and the way he feels about hurting a person leaves him with the same lack of remorse after killing a bug. He thinks of it as natural selection.

The first half of “Chronicle” is the most fun part of the movie. It has fun with these kids experimenting with these new powers and gaining more from them, such as when they realize they can soar through the air together. There are a lot of laughs, particularly with the one-liners the kids spew and the constant mishaps that occur when first testing their powers. My favorite scene is when Andrew and Steve perform at a talent show, showing off their powers, pretending to perform magic tricks, and wowing everyone in the process. But then the movie develops into something more deep and dark that comes mainly from Andrew’s slowly but surely loss of innocence. One tragedy leads to certain danger and that leads to a total mental breakdown. With someone of his abilities, that can’t be good.

“Chronicle” may be inconsistent that way—different second half in contrast to the second—but the second half is admittedly very strong. It shows Andrew’s problems in a convincing way and when you think about it, there are moments in the first half that do lead to what Andrew could be capable of. I remember Andrew always learning his powers faster than Matt and Steve can because he focuses the hardest, and when he records himself with his camera (while moving the camera in the air and letting it hover in his bedroom), he ponders. Now we’re aware what he was thinking about doing all along. We see some of his home life when he’s not fooling around with his friends, and it is enough to show the pain he goes through, what with his ailing mother and his jerk of a father.

Give credit to the director—newcomer Josh Trank—and the writer—also-newcomer Matt Landis, John Landis’s son—for making these kids seem like actual teenagers and behaving like they would behave if they were suddenly telekinetic. I believed these young actors were living their characters and I felt their excitement. But I suppose that could also be because of the first-person perspective, seeing things through the video camera’s point of view. And to keep things from being repetitive, “Chronicle” beat the problem by showing things through the view of other cameras, particularly the camera belonging to a cute blogger named Casey (Ashley Hinshaw), whom Matt has a bit of a crush on. This works especially well in a conversation scene—we first see through Casey’s camera to see Matt talking (while he has Andrew’s camera), then through the other camera to see Casey as she talks. And using other cameras for perspective works especially well in the film’s explosive climax in which Andrew completely loses his sanity and lets out all of his rage onto public property and unlucky people.

So, from goofing around comes deep trouble. But isn’t that what would happen if a troubled teenager really did gain mind powers and decide not to use them responsibly? Not that it could happen, but what if? That’s why the first-person perspective tells this story—to give a great kind of “what-if” tale. What have I left out of this review? Only the effects. The special effects used to make objects float and make the kids fly are downright first-rate. They look extremely convincing and make the production values even more impressive. To wrap this up, even if “Chronicle” switches gears, it has a lot of fun before doing so.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)

10 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

One of the great things about the late Walt Disney’s movies is that they’re suitable for all audiences. Disney has a reputation of being an important member of the family-movie circuit, as well as the richest. But that’s just it—they key word in that phrase is “family” movie, not “kid’s” movie. These are good-hearted movies for children and adults. If Disney’s animated movies, such as “Pinocchio,” can show that, then his live-action films certainly could. One that comes to mind is the 1954 film adaptation of Jules Verne’s “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.”

“20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” is a delightful adventure movie—exciting, mysterious, thrilling, and when it needs to be, insightful. It’s great for kids, but also for adults, who I think arguably, might enjoy it more. It knows how to tell a story, it’s thought provoking, and visually thrilling.

It begins as something unknown continues to sink ships all over the ocean. Professor Arronax (Paul Lukas) has been invited to board an expedition to search for the supposed “monster.” But after an encounter with the thing, the Professor, his meek but loyal assistant Conseil (Peter Lorre), and sailor Ned Land (Kirk Douglas) are left shipwrecked, and they swim to find that the monster is not a monster at all. It is, in fact, a fully functional submarine.

The submarine is an amazing discovery for its time, and is captained by the megalomaniacal Captain Nemo (James Mason), a genius with a skill for invention, a hunger for freedom, and a grudge against humanity. Because he has read the Professor’s work and feels there’s more he can show him, he agrees to take him and his two companions aboard. The Professor is fascinated by Nemo’s invention(s) and free world, and unnerved by his resentment for society. Ned, however, would like nothing more than to escape.

Everything around the submarine is a visual treat. Showing how the contraption works and all of the neat little gadgets around it makes it interesting to watch. I feel that everything in this movie’s budget went into this submarine and it shows. And it’s captained by a particularly interesting character—Captain Nemo is one of the great villains in literature and is no exception in the movies, based on the performance by James Mason. Nemo is constantly wavering between insanity and intelligence, and has his own views of society that forces him to create a deadly crusade across the seven seas. James Mason is brilliant as Nemo—he makes us hate him one minute, and then care for him the next.

There are plenty of fun action sequences. Three come to mind—the first is, the shark attack underwater, as Ned and Conseil go hunting underwater (sporting diving suits and helmets) and attempt to steal buried treasure when they come across trouble; the second is, a chase by a cannibal tribe on a remote island which ends with another clever invention by Nemo; and last but definitely least is, a battle with a giant squid. Great creature effects are put into that last sequence, like giant tentacles wrapping around the crew, and the pacing is perfect as Ned attempts to break out of his prison room in order to save the day, making this a brilliantly formed action sequence.

Kirk Douglas is likable as the rambunctious scalawag Ned Land, who becomes the unlikely hero only after trying multiple times to escape. Paul Lukas does a nice job as the intellectual who is slowly descending to Nemo’s level, and Peter Lorre is fun as the meek one caught in the middle of all this.

There are also some nice light-hearted moments to go with the dark material, such as when Ned plays a catchy fun tune called “Whale of a Tale” on guitar, or when Nemo’s pet seal who apparently prefers cigars over seafood—though to be fair, I think those cigars were made of seaweed, since the food on that ship is entirely made of creatures from the sea. Would you believe that the supposed “cream” is actually milk from a giant sperm whale?

“20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” is a timeless classic in not only the Disney live-action group, but also the action-adventure genre. It provides characters to root for, a villain that can be both sympathetic and intimidating, great visual sets, sensational sequences, and a well-moving story.

Side Effects (2013)

10 Feb

Rooney-Mara

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Side Effects,” director Steven Soderbergh’s final film (yeah, we’ll see about that), has so many twists and turns in its story and development that it’s hard not to think of one of the late Alfred Hitchcock’s thrillers. It’s said that Hitchcock always loved to “play his audiences like a piano” with his films and here, it seems that Soderbergh wanted to do the same thing. To review a movie like this is difficult because I’m hesitant about giving away certain details of the story, even in the beginning. It’s like a movie that Hitchcock would have warned critics not to give away the beginning (“Psycho,” for example).

And I have to be honest—it worked for me. I didn’t watch a single trailer for “Side Effects” nor did I read any other reviews beforehand. (I only noticed the film’s poster, and I was to see either this or “Identity Thief” this weekend.)

“Side Effects” has twist upon twist upon twist, bringing a solid, gripping thriller from one of our best directors.

I have an obligation to at least say a little bit about the story. As the movie opens, we’re introduced to 28-year-old Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara), who is waiting for her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) to be released from a four-year prison sentence (on what charge, I might have missed). As if in a trance, Emily drives her car into a parking garage wall and nearly kills herself. This begins a series of therapy sessions with Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), who prescribes her a series of antidepressant medications (even though Banks is undoubtedly more interested in drug studies than properly helping his patients). The drugs work, as Emily begins to gain her normal life with Martin again. However, a certain side effect has Emily sleepwalking, and this leads to tragedy…

Period. That’s all I’m going to write about the plot for “Side Effects.” What the tragedy means, what it leads to, and everything that follows further deserves to be experienced. The less you know, the better. But this is a smart film that doesn’t go for the usual elements you’d expect from a modern thriller.

Rooney Mara, playing Emily, is given her first leading role since her Oscar-nominated turn in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” In the difficult role of a woman fighting depression and confusion, she’s great in this movie. Jude Law, as Dr. Banks, handles his role with great conviction—it’s his finest performance in quite a while. Channing Tatum is a reliable screen presence as Emily’s husband, and Vinessa Shaw is convincing as Banks’ wife who can’t quite handle her husband’s obsessiveness and anger after the aforementioned tragedy occurs (I still refuse to talk). Catherine Zeta-Jones portrays Emily’s previous therapist whom Banks visits for advice about Emily’s conditions, and unfortunately, she’s miscast here. She doesn’t do a terrible job, but she just seems too…obvious.

Not everything about “Side Effects” works. While you can follow the story fine, there are little details I wish were extended—that’s just my personal preference. And the certain twist that sets up the final act of the movie, while I never saw it coming, is a little too much for me to buy.

It’s been reported that “Side Effects” is Steven Soderbergh’s final theatrical feature. Apparently, Soderbergh has said that he wanted to try something new, with TV for example. Maybe he goes and comes back to film, or maybe he likes where his new career will lead him. But one can hope that “Side Effects” does not turn out to be his final film, because this is a director who clearly knows how to make movies and tell stories in a most unpredictable way. If the former is true, and this is his last film, “Side Effects” is a decent way to go. It’s a neat thriller made by a damn good director.

A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ but a Sandwich (1978)

9 Feb

741952659693

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

What’s more disturbing about drug use is that some people are the ones we least suspect of using. Take Benjie: He’s 13 years old. He lives in the Watts ghetto with his caring mother, stepfather, and grandmother. He’s a bright junior high school student. He’s happy just hanging out with his friends.

Now he’s a heroin addict. He was introduced to the stuff by one of his buddies, and loves the high so much that he frequently buys from the local drug dealer.

Benjie is the focus of “A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ but a Sandwich,” a tough, well-acted, gritty family drama about a confused boy caught in a world of drug addiction. He keeps saying he isn’t hooked—he is.

The situation gets worse, and Benjie is eventually sent to a drug rehabilitation center when everyone finds out about him. In one of the most bizarre sequences in the movie, we see in photo slides Benjie coping with rehab—in between is a painfully effective scene in which Benjie is confronted by an encounter group and tearfully opens up to them.

That leads to the second half of the movie, as Benjie deals with rehabilitation, starting over, deeper temptation, and his relationship with his stepfather.

The most interesting part of “A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ but a Sandwich” is the relationship between Benjie and his stepfather. The stepfather is not written as a monster to act as reason for Benjie to use drugs in the first place. Instead, he tries to be the best father Benjie can be, but Benjie constantly shuts him out when he’s there for him. Benjie tells his best friend that he does this because he’s afraid that if he winds up loving him like a father, then he’ll be sad if this new father leaves, like his old father. When the stepfather—named Butler—finds out about Benjie’s new hobby, he’s very strict and sometimes goes out of line, but tries to do the right thing by him. And when things get really nasty, he seems to be the only person Benjie can depend on. But the problem is, he can get to his wit’s end with the kid.

Those scenes make “A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ but a Sandwich” more of a movie about family values and trust rather than merely a story of tragedy involving young people and drugs (though it is that, as well).

The acting is great, especially seen in the scenes involving Paul Winfield as Butler and Larry B. Scott as Benjie. Paul Winfield is excellent as Butler—he creates a character that is tough and persuasive as he tries to be a hero figure as a surrogate father for a disillusioned teenager. Larry B. Scott turns in a believable performance as a kid who has high spirits but whose ambitions turn low. Cicely Tyson as Benjie’s mother, Helen Martin as Benjie’s grandmother, and Kevin Hooks as the drug dealer named “Tiger” are also solid.

What surprised me about “A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ but a Sandwich” was how honest it was. In fact, at times, it’s hard to watch. But that means it’s working. Just about every scene in this movie is so authentic that at times it is frightening. It’s an effective tale about how pride, trust, and respect can be taken away by drugs, and about how coping and willing with withdrawal can gain them back.

The People Under the Stairs (1991)

9 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

For a movie director that mostly does horror films, Wes Craven seems like a smart person. His films are not necessarily masterpieces except to many horror fans, but you can see what he shoots for and you have admire him for that. He adds terror and suspense to artistry and imagination. That was the case for “A Nightmare on Elm Street” and “The Serpent and the Rainbow”—“The People under the Stairs” is one of his more satisfying films, in my opinion. It’s a scary, well-acted horror movie with a good deal of imagination.

The main feature is a house full of gruesome surprises, ghoulish children in the basement, passageways in the walls, and a couple, only known as Man and Woman, that are psychotic, delusional, insane, grownup monsters. The people under the stairs in the basement, as the title refers to, are children that they stole as babies and punished very severely when they “heard too much, saw too much, or said too much.” They have stooped to cannibalism after being locked up downstairs for many years—they’re given flashlights to see their ways around and are given dead human meat—don’t laugh—to eat. But the people under the stairs are not the real monsters here—the Man and Woman are not to be messed around with. Anyone who breaks into the house or visits the house to look around (like police or salesmen) wind up murdered by the couple…and then eaten by the people under the stairs. There is no compromising with this couple—they will kill you mercilessly.

And what’s even scarier? They act like it’s their lives’ duty to “punish” people. After they murder mostly-innocent visitors, they say, “May they burn in hell.” They have their own insane delusions of religion and feel like they are supposed to act like this. Also, they have fun while doing this. The Man and Woman are jolly killers, if you can believe this. The Man, especially, is the one who yells at runaways trapped in the house, “Gonna kill yooouuu!!!” At one point, he dances around near the Woman and chants “I got him” multiple times, leaving the Woman to stand not amused and tell him in a firm, clear voice, “Prove it.”

Played by Everett McGill and Wendy Robie, the performances and personalities of the Man and Woman are so over-the-top that even when you shouldn’t, you laugh at certain moments. At the same time, you are frightened because of their behavior. They kill, they sic their bloodthirsty Rottweiler on those who are loose in the house, and they lock up and abuse their teenage daughter Alice (A.J. Langer) very severely, but not as bad as the people under the stairs. (Still, it’s pretty bad.) Alice is a terrified young girl who would like to get out of this house, away from this crazy couple. But nobody ever gets out of this house—the doors are all locked (the front door even gives an electric shock) and the windows are all unbreakable. Inside the house, there are many passageways from inside the walls that Alice’s friend Roach, one of the people under the stairs who has escaped the basement and is being hunted by the Man frequently. The house is like an amusement park haunted house with many surprises around every corner and secret ways to get through many areas.

The passageways come in handy for the young hero of the film—a thirteen-year-old Ghetto kid nicknamed “Fool” (Brandon Adams) who helps his older sister’s boyfriend Leroy (Ving Rhames) break into the house to retrieve a hidden gold coin collection to cover Fool’s family’s apartment rent (one little flaw with this plan is that the Man and the Woman are the landlords to begin with, but oh well). Leroy is killed by the couple and Fool is forced to fight for his life—he makes friends with Alice who gives him some help, he is chased by the Rottweiler, he is menaced by the people under the stairs, and does battle with the Man and Woman throughout the film. This kid has so many tricks up his sleeve in the way he outsmarts these evil adults that this could be an R-rated “Home Alone.” It is very violent and gruesome and frightening—this is not for small children. The R rating is well-deserved.

I mentioned that “The People under the Stairs” was one of Wes Craven’s most satisfying films, and it is impressive. The house is a fun house of horrors, Brandon Adams is a likable resourceful hero, Everett McGill and Wendy Robie are a frightening couple, A.J. Langer is suitably sweet and scared as Alice, and there are genuinely frightening moments. I was cheering for Fool all along, I wanted him to escape this madhouse, and this is quite odd because when you have a child in jeopardy, it seems like a cheap move for suspense. But with the craziness of the villains, it almost seems like all bets are off. It’s this bravery (and again, imagination with the story and sets) that earns “The People under the Stairs” a recommendation from me.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →