Archive by Author

The Runaways (2010)

9 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Runaways” is a biopic about the all-girl rock band started by Joan Jett, whom we know as the punk rock female singer from Joan Jett and the Blackhearts mainly. For those who have little to no knowledge of The Runaways, her start in the music business, “The Runaways” tells that story with its own touches. The result is a good biopic—not a great biopic. It is well-made but standard in its storytelling. What makes it special—in fact, what makes most biopics special—are the performances from the actors who portray the historical figures the movie bases them on.

The movie opens as a young woman—guitarist Joan Jett, played by Kristen Stewart—and her friend—drummer Sandy West (Stella Maeve)—approach a music agent named Kim Fowley (Michael Shannon). Joan tells Kim that she wants him to manage an all-girl rock band with her as the lead guitarist. Kim hears them play and believes they have potential, so he tells them to be tougher and more energetic in their music performances. He brings The Runaways together and helps bring along the rest of the group—including guitarist Lila Ford (Scout Taylor-Compton), bassist Robin (Alia Shawkat, the rebellious teenage girl in “Arrested Development”), and fifteen-year-old singer Cherie Currie (Dakota Fanning). They are young and ready to rock. But Kim knows getting them known to the public isn’t going to be easy, so he continues to push them harder during practice.

Cherie Currie could be considered the main protagonist of the story. We see her living with her sister and mother (a wannabe actress who always shouts “Places everyone” when getting her daughters’ attention) in a rural home. In an opening scene, Cherie dons a lot of makeup and lip-synchs David Bowie in a talent show, where she is booed off the stage.

What’s most fun about “The Runaways” is the creation of The Runaways’ popular songs such as “Cherry Bomb.” The music is one of the best things in the movie. When the band is on the stage, “The Runaways” rocks along with it. But that’s not the only thing that gives it its strength. Performances from the lead actors make this worth watching. Kristen Stewart is excellent as Joan Jett, with the short brunette hair and attitude that mixes asking for trouble with sincerity. Dakota Fanning is very good as Cherie Currie—I think this is her first role in which she doesn’t play a little girl, but a young woman. The scene-stealer here is Michael Shannon—his character of Kim is a creep and proud of it. He is not likable but he seems very real. What didn’t quite work was some of the elements in the storytelling, such as the relationship between Joan and Cherie. Also, the melodrama in which Cherie’s family misses her is a bit uneven, though Cherie’s relationship with her sister is pleasant enough. Maybe a few scenes with Joan Jett’s home life would’ve made the movie earn a three-and-a-half star rating. What did work, aside from the music and the performances, was Cherie’s descending into the world of drugs and sex, after the band makes it big in Japan. That was convincing enough.

Like I said, “The Runaways” is not a great biopic—it’s a good one and I’m giving it three stars. I just wish the screenplay went further ahead with the band and the relationships. Luckily, they have the performances and the music to compensate for the script’s weaknesses.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

9 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is a film adaptation of the well-known Roald Dahl children’s book of the same name, as well as a remake of the well-known 1971 children’s classic, entitled “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.” It’s also an easy movie to review—everything in this movie works except for Willy Wonka, the magical tour guide who was a huge part of the magic in the original 1971 film. While Gene Wilder played him as welcoming, winning, magical, though maybe somewhat deranged, Johnny Depp, playing Wonka in this new version, is just…awkward. Depp plays him all over the place, but there is just no sense of magic with the way he portrays Willy Wonka. He’s not charismatic; he’s uncomfortable and creepy. Wonka is supposed to tour five kids into his wondrous chocolate factory. I’m just glad the parents are there with the kids before the crazy stuff happens to them (more on that later)—especially since their tour guide is a…weirdo.

That’s not to say Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka in the original wasn’t weird, but at least that was part of his edge. Sure, he was mysterious, but he could be kind when he needed to be and fun to be around. Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka is not only annoying, but also somewhat psychotic in the way that his motives are never quite clear.

But strangely, even if Johnny Depp’s performance doesn’t work, there are many more elements of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” that do. They help me give the movie a mild recommendation.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” centers around a little boy named Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore, who previously co-starred with Depp in “Finding Neverland”) whose family is so poor that they have cabbage for dinner every night, all four grandparents sleep and live in the same bed, and there’s a large hole in the ceiling of Charlie’s upstairs bedroom, open to cold weather. Oh, and the house is slanted. He lives in the town where Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory is located—as the story goes, no one goes in and no one comes out. But what goes on in that factory? Who’s working there?

Well, it turns out that five children will get the chance to find out the answers to those questions if they find golden tickets inside Wonka chocolate bars. The first four kids who find it each have serious character flaws—one never stops eating, one is rich, bratty, and spoiled, one is overly obsessed with winning (even chewing a piece of gum for three months for a world record), and one is obsessed with video games and TV. Charlie gets the last ticket, though not without suspense.

That’s the first half-hour of the movie, and then all five kids, each bringing a legal guardian (Charlie brings his feisty Grandpa Joe), arrive at the factory, only to be welcomed by the strange Willy Wonka who will serve as their tour guide. When he first arrives, he’s reading his greeting from cue cards and acts uncomfortable when the kids say “hi” to him. Kind of rude for someone who sends out tickets inviting people to visit inside his top-secret factory.

It turns out the factory is a dream come true. There’s a room that is like a candy wonderland—it’s a meadow made entirely out of sweets. Everything is edible, even the grass and river (which is made entirely out of chocolate and churned by a waterfall). The inventing room is full of strange inventions and neat little tricks all around. There are squirrels that are specially trained to test walnuts. And even more strange, wonderful stuff is seen. “Why is everything here completely pointless,” one of the kids rudely asks. Charlie calmly replies, “Candy doesn’t have to have a point. That’s why it’s candy.” Truer words couldn’t be spoken about this place.

Charlie is a good kid—honest, sincere, nice, and true to his heart. But the other four kids’ flaws get the better of them in this factory. With each stop, one of these kids gets a comeuppance. The fat kid drinks from the chocolate river and winds up in the filtration system after falling in—he shouldn’t have been greedy. The other kids suffer worse fates they had coming due to their flaws, but they still make it out alive so they can learn from their experiences. So the message is as clear, as in the original version—be kind and patient, and one day you’ll be rewarded. That’s how Charlie wins the big prize at the end, which I won’t spoil in this review, if you haven’t seen the original version already.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” was directed by Tim Burton, who specializes in weirdness/quirkiness. As is the case with most of his movies, the movie looks incredible. Even before we go inside Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, the everyday modern world is neat in the way the settings/surroundings are exaggerated to look like an illustrated fairy tale. The outside of the factory seen from behind a large gate, the young protagonist’s slanted little house, even the candy stores—all of these locations/sets are fun to look at. And that’s just the first thirty minutes of the movie. Inside the factory, later, we get more visual treats. The candy room is a pure delight. Everything looks edible, and you really want to just fly into the screen and join the experience. The chocolate river, in particular, looks especially realistic. And there are more visual treats as the movie (and factory tour) goes along.

The story gets deeper with Wonka’s back-story—how Wonka became who he is now and why he apparently has a “parent” complex. We never even saw a back-story in the original version. That’s because we didn’t need one—the character was already as interesting as he could be without being the main focus of the story, which is Charlie. However, while it may not be necessary, there needs to be at least some saving grace from Johnny Depp’s awkward performance.

And I’m sorry, I keep coming back to how uncharismatic this Willy Wonka is. What’s really surprising is that Johnny Depp playing the role sounds like it would be great. This should have been the high point of the movie, or at least one of them. But I have no idea what he’s doing with this performance. How can you not think of Michael Jackson crossed with Marilyn Manson when watching him? That’s not a welcome combination, and I don’t care who I’m talking to with this review.

But like I said, everything else in the movie works. The movie looks great, the story is well-executed, and the other actors do competent jobs. Freddie Highmore is likable and sweet as Charlie, David Kelly is wonderful as Grandpa Joe, and the other four kids—Julia Winter, AnnaSophia Robb, Jordan Fry, and Philip Wiegratz—are good comic actors.

OH! I cannot believe I forgot to mention something else I liked in this movie—the Oompa-Loompas, the race of strange, little men (all of which played by Deep Roy) who are the workers of the factory. Whenever one of the kids gets into trouble in the factory, there they are to sing songs about their fate. Their musical numbers come out of nowhere and are as weird and fun as the singing waiters in “The Polar Express.” These sequences are very delightful.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is a nice fantasy film, despite Johnny Depp’s awkward performance. Just about everything else in this movie works well and are enough for me to rate it three stars. I gave the original film four stars, and that was made more than thirty years before this one. At least that version had a more charismatic tour guide for the chocolate factory.

Scent of a Woman (1992)

9 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

In “Scent of a Woman,” Charlie Simms (Chris O’Donnell) is a shy Boston prep-school student who needs a good role model in his life. His mother and stepfather live in Oregon, and he and his stepfather don’t see eye-to-eye. And he’s not the most popular kid in a school where most of his classmates are spoiled by their wealthy fathers. Some of those classmates have pulled a prank on the headmaster, damaging his new Jaguar. Charlie knows who did it, but won’t snitch. However, if he doesn’t, he’ll be expelled. So, a disciplinary hearing is scheduled after Thanksgiving break to determine Charlie’s scholastic future.

Enter Lt. Col. Frank Slade (Al Pacino), a lonely, blind veteran. He’s an embittered man with two things that keep his spirit alive—his sense of humor and his romanticism. Charlie is working over the Thanksgiving weekend as his aide and companion. When he first meets him for an interview, Slade takes joy in making him feel as miserable as he feels. He uses sarcasm, anger, and abrasiveness to further confuse and slightly frighten Charlie.

In that first scene you see Slade, you get the feeling he enjoys doing this, as if his interviewees are his “victims.” And it’s probably not the best way for the audience to be introduced to this character, because he is so coarse that he comes so close to being a turnoff for the movie. But as performed by Pacino and written by Bo Goldman, the character gradually becomes more fascinating as the role and movie progresses. We can see why he acts this way and also why he isn’t such a miserable old fart.

“Scent of a Woman” takes these two characters, and their own stories, and brings them into a story that uses the reliable coming-of-age formula in which a young man is counseled by an older man who has lived through a lot and has a thing or two to teach his new pupil. In that case, these two characters seem just right for each other.

Anyway, it turns out Charlie gets the job of housesitting and looking after Slade. Charlie agrees to put up with more of Slade’s insults, mainly for the money. However, Slade has other plans in mind. Slade ropes Charlie into a trip to New York City to have a good time. Charlie tries to get away, as he is uncertain of whatever’s going to happen this weekend (and Slade has many tricks up his sleeve), and on top of that, he’s got the hearing to think about. But he has to do his job and keep Slade out of trouble…even though Slade is stubborn to keep making trouble.

Slade is blind, but he sees himself as a ladies’ man and tries to let Charlie in on his ideas about women. Slade sees women as the most exotic and beautiful creatures on Earth, and even believes he can tell a lot about a woman by her scent—hair color, eye color, perfume, etc. And while his ideas may seem old-fashioned (and being in the military most of his life, he has never really known a woman very well), Charlie can’t argue with him…especially after his charm works with an attractive young woman, Donna (Gabrielle Anwar), with whom, in one of the movie’s best scenes, he shares a tango. Slade and Charlie meet Donna at a hotel ballroom, and during conversation, Slade is finally able to convince her to tango with him.

Charlie doesn’t trust every of Slade’s actions, especially when Slade drinks heavily. He’s constantly on guard whenever Slade has something in mind that he neglects to let Charlie in on beforehand. Sure, riding in a limo and staying at a suite at the Waldorf-Astoria is nice, but Slade has already mentioned that he’s going to enjoy everything New York has to offer before committing suicide. What can Charlie do except respond politely to keep Slade from being more extreme, until he can find some way to stop him if he’s serious about killing himself?

Al Pacino was not going to let this film go down. He knows a lot rides on this character of Col. Slade, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he forced himself to give the “performance-of-a-lifetime” for this role. Because “Scent of a Woman” rides mostly on his performance, the character, and the central relationship between Slade and Charlie, Pacino’s effectiveness is all the more welcome, to say the least. He delivers a great portrayal of a man who has a vindictive outlook on life with a few ways of making things interesting for him. And who can deliver a hearty “hoo-ah” every now and then better than him?

Chris O’Donnell is solid as Charlie, playing a nice kid to sympathize with. Most of the story is seen through his eyes.

This complicated relationship these two characters share—in that one is going to learn something from the other—is executed brilliantly. It’s believable and doesn’t go for the easy way through. The “easy way” would be for these two to befriend each other early on, but “Scent of a Woman” has them keep their distances, so that Slade is doing his thing and Charlie is staying on guard. And then when it comes to the tense moments when they need to help each other, you feel what each person is going through and sense how it all came to this.

Everything leads to the final act, in which Charlie’s scholastic future is on the line. Charlie is pushed into telling what he knows about the school prank, and there may or may not be a way out of this with his honor intact. It’s amazing how, without giving much away, everything that was set up before seems to come together for this.

“Scent of a Woman” is often criticized for its running-time length of two hours and 37 minutes. I don’t care about how long it had to be. It was as long as its storyline needed it to be. In fact, I could watch this go on for another half-hour, if given another plot element. As most film critics say it, no great movie is too long. And “Scent of a Woman” doesn’t feel as long as it would seem.

I think “Scent of a Woman” is a damn good movie. The performances are brilliant, the writing is intelligent, the music score by Thomas Newman is excellent, every setup has its payoff, and the whole film has a skillful and intriguing feel. What else can I say but…hoo-ah!

The Karate Kid (1984)

8 Feb

karate-kid1

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Any subject matter can be done well. In the case for “The Karate Kid,” it’s an underdog story that is done very well. This movie could be considered as a “younger Rocky,” since it’s from the same director—John G. Alvidsen—and has the same basic premise of a character—younger this time—preparing for a big fight at the end. But it’s not fair to make that comparison because this movie stands out on its own. This is a much better film than you’d expect when you hear the title of the film—it’s touching, fun, well-acted, and well-made.

Ralph Macchio plays the protagonist—sixteen-year-old Daniel Larusso. He and his mother (Randee Heller) move from Newark, New Jersey to Reseda, California and Daniel isn’t as excited as his mother. (“This is the end of the line,” the mother says as they arrive at their new home. “You’re tellin’ me,” Daniel sullenly says under his breath.) Then he meets a beautiful blonde girl named Ali (Elisabeth Shue) and they hit it off nicely. But that angers her ex-boyfriend Johnny (William Zabka), a blond hunky jerk with a black belt in karate. He beats the stuffing out of Daniel, who tries to fight back but he’s only studied karate at the YMCA in Jersey; this kid is from Southern California and takes karate at the dojo near the drug store.

Daniel is menaced and beaten more and more as days go by—he considers checking out the karate place, but the problem is the instructor is a sadistic Army vet who believes in “no mercy.” Daniel is amazed to discover that Mr. Miyagi (Pat Morita), the Japanese handyman at the apartment building he lives in, knows a great deal about karate as he takes down Johnny and the bullies one night. Mr. Miyagi offers to teach Daniel karate in preparation for a karate tournament, in which Daniel must beat Johnny and the other Cobra Kai students in order to gain respect. His methods are not promising—Miyagi has Daniel wash his car, paint the fence, paint the house, and sand the deck. Daniel thinks he’s doing manual labor, but it turns out there’s a method here.

This is great—it’s smart writing here. And while Miyagi still teaches Daniel karate, there’s a nice friendship between the two. It seems fresh and original—this is a wonderful student/teacher relationship. They understand each other and feel like they’re each other’s best friends in quite a while. Actually, there are more relationships within characters and they all work fine. The romance between Daniel and Ali is nicely handled and then there’s the relationship between Daniel and his mother. All of these relationships are credibly handled and acted. There hardly seems to be a moment of acting. It all seems natural.

And that’s a wonderful thing about this movie—the filmmakers know what to do to make a movie with martial arts as a central theme. They think of the story and characters before they think of the martial arts. Too many kung-fu or karate movies would care less—not “The Karate Kid.”

Ralph Macchio is a natural actor and extremely likable as Daniel. He has a wit, but knows when to shut up and pay attention. He’s nervous, but good at hiding it. That makes him a likable main character to follow. Pat Morita is wonderful as Mr. Miyagi. In reality, Morita is a Japanese-American, but in the movie, he plays a different person (of course, that’s acting) by playing a Japanese import with a struggle for English. On top of that, the character is a true original—a breath of fresh air for the “wise old man” character. He has a sense of humor and knows a convincing lot about karate, but he also has his tragic past to try and forget. Morita is great here. The supporting cast is strong as well. Elisabeth Shue is beautiful, sweet, and likable. Randee Heller portrays a tough mom character, enthusiastic and with a street-smart personality. William Zabka is suitably slimy. And then there’s Martin Kove as the psycho karate instructor—“ruthless” is an understatement description of his character. He makes this character so villainous that it’s so over-the-top…but it’s so darn memorable and fun to watch.

Just like “Rocky,” “The Karate Kid” ends with a fight climax, in which Daniel must finally fight the bullies after learning everything he was taught by Mr. Miyagi and putting it to use. These fight climaxes seem almost obligatory, but this one is well-handled and it actually means something because we feel like we know the characters and buy into their relationships with each other. The heart is with “The Karate Kid’s” story and characters, and unlike most underdog stories, it’s about something.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

8 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The opening sequence of Stanley Kubrick’s war film “Full Metal Jacket” features young Army recruits getting their heads shaven in time for training camp. The expressions on each of their faces represent misery…but they haven’t experienced anything yet.

That’s one of many amazing, complex touches added to this story set during the Vietnam War. It’s the story of the descent into madness that war can bring. “Full Metal Jacket” is not a warm, heavy-handed movie about the Vietnam War, but a traumatic, blunt tale about war itself.

But what more could you expect with this kind of complexity from the great director Stanley Kubrick? This is a director who goes out of his way to make sure not one shot rings false or forced, to the extent of filming more takes than any other director (or actors to be directed) could imagine. Kubrick makes sure to capture every little detail on screen, positioning the cameras right where he needs them so we can feel what he captures.

Kubrick’s favorite close-up shot to use in each of his movies—a character has his chin down, but his eyes straight up at the camera. In “Full Metal Jacket,” that close-up is focused on Pvt. Leonard “Gomer Pyle” Lawrence, a chubby misfit who is the subject of humiliation at basic training on Parris Island and is about to be pushed over the edge.

Kubrick’s favorite camera movement—the Steadycam. This comes in handy almost throughout the entire movie, particularly in sequences that feature the drill sergeant on Parris Island instructing the marine grunts, and sequences in the final half that feature heavy war action in Vietnam.

Those are all essential to the tension that “Full Metal Jacket” brings—first to training camp, then to war.

The first 45 minutes of “Full Metal Jacket” are just brilliant, as we see the marine grunts undergoing basic training. Sometimes, it’s funny, but it’s mostly brutal, mainly because of the grunts’ instructor (R. Lee Ermey) making their lives hell when not giving speeches about the great Marine marksmen, which include Lee Harvey Oswald. Especially vulnerable is “Pvt. Pyle” (Vince D’Onofrio) who starts out as a complete loser not cut out for all of this. I’ll never forget the unbroken shot in which the other men thrash the poor guy at night in bed. That pummeling opens his eyes to what’s around him and causes him to slowly but surely give in to the madness.

That’s the first half of “Full Metal Jacket” and it’s pure Kubrick—irony, harshness, terror, and art. It’s so good that it comes close to overshadowing the rest of the movie, which takes place in Vietnam, following another Marine nicknamed “Pvt. Joker” who was the squad leader on Parris Island. Now he’s a journalist who doesn’t take the War seriously (he wears a peace symbol while wearing a hat that has “BORN TO KILL” written on it). Joker goes out into the wild to do a story on a platoon, just to relieve himself from boredom in De Nang, and gets more than he expected.

But even the second half is well put together and pretty strong. It’s also where “Full Metal Jacket” comes full circle—from basic training to real warfare. It shows how war affects these characters and in a key scene, we see the startled but joyful nature of these soldiers.

The Vietnam sequences were shot on stages and outdoor sets in England, and they look so realistic that, with the cinematography and no-nonsense acting, it feels like a documentary is being shot instead of a war narrative (that’s even more convincing when a news camera crew comes in to interview the soldiers—“We’re getting killed for these people, and they don’t even appreciate it. They think it’s a big joke,” one of them declares). This is one of the best-looking war movies I’ve ever seen.

The acting is excellent, particularly from Vince D’Onofrio and R. Lee Ermey in the first half of the movie. Matthew Modine, as Joker, takes a little getting used to, with the constant joking despite knowing where he is. But as the movie progresses, he does become more of a character than a “joker” and Modine shows how surprisingly solid he is at playing him. The other actors—which include Adam Baldwin, Arliss Howard, Dorian Harewood, and Kevyn Major Howard—seem so real, they help make the movie feel like a documentary. Kubrick has directed them well, as he always does (though I can imagine the hard work they must have been put through).

“Full Metal Jacket” makes Oliver Stone’s war drama “Platoon” look like a bedtime story. While that film was about embracing the soldier within, this film digs deeper into the terrors of the Vietnam War and the insanity that was brought about. It’s a harrowing, tensely-built story that is not for the faint of heart.

Die Hard (1988)

8 Feb

John-McClaneDie-Hard-1988Before-he-started-talking-to-chairs-Clint-Eastwood’s-Dirty-Harry-was-the-epitome-of-the-trigger-happy-catchphrase-cop.-Yet-out-of-his-legacy-crawled-John-McClane-–-bloodied-bruised-and-probably-we-650x438

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

One can praise “Die Hard” for its slam-bang action sequences and its two great performances of two very interesting characters. That’s exactly what I am doing—solid three-and-a-half star rating based on those elements. The action scenes are half routine and half original, so when you put them both together, they’re amazing. And then you have the star of the picture—the hero in action who will go through many lengths to accomplish the impossible. A masterstroke here is that the character is believable as he goes through one situation after another—he’s a New York cop named John McClane who visits a 30-story building in Los Angeles and winds up fighting twelve terrorists who have taken over the whole building and are holding many people (including his wife) hostage. The odds are against John McClane here and as the movie’s poster puts it well, that’s just the way he likes it.

That’s one of the two very interesting characters I mentioned already. The other is the villain. Of course, all of the best action movies have compelling villains and Hans Gruber, the leader of the terrorists, is one of the absolute best. This is a man who is well-dressed, has a neatly-trimmed beard, and is not your typical out-of-control maniac—he’s a somewhat well-behaved German intellectual who has his own delusions of authority. He would like to get his way because he believes this is the right thing to do. He doesn’t call himself a terrorist, though not much is said in the defense of his hired team of gunmen who really are maniacs out for blood. Actually, Hans believes he is superior to these misfits, but seeing as how they are packed with machine guns and explosives, it’s probably smart not to say that to them.

Hans has taken control of the Nakatomi building with a controlled plan of robbing millions of dollars in negotiable bonds from the building vault. The terrorists hold party guests hostage on the party floor, but they overlook John McClane who was invited by his almost-divorced wife, now taken hostage. John hides in one of the higher floors of the building and becomes a one-man army against these terrorists. He sneaks around, gets information, finds a way to inform the police (and the FBI become involved later), and fights as many of the terrorists as they come.

All of this is a ton of fun! The action is very impressive, the stunt work is excellent, and the special effects are first-rate. There are shootouts, chases, close calls, and explosives being thrown down an elevator shaft. But more importantly, the action scenes are never boring. For one reason, it’s because of its technicalities. For another reason, the pacing is excellent. Director John McTiernan has paced this movie very well. And for another, it’s because Bruce Willis, as John, makes a great hero. He has a charming personality with wit and priceless one-liners to burst—we definitely know that when the action stops (and it does, so the action doesn’t go forever). And he has an everyman quality—Willis is so great at making John believable. We root for him as he takes down these terrorists and he holds our attention throughout.

In between the action is Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber—mostly, he stands by and makes sure that the plan is not altered. He has his men go after the “fly in the ointment” while he makes sure everything is still under control and negotiates with the police and the FBI, who are mostly as ignorant as can be. We know that Hans is no ordinary terrorist. This is a man who wants to get things done and doesn’t want time to mess around, like the wild animals he sends after John.

Despite all I’ve said, I am not giving “Die Hard” four stars. I apologize, but there is one character who didn’t really work. When you have good supporting performances by Bonnie Bedelia as John’s wife, Reginald VelJohnson as the cop who communicates with John via radio, and William Atherton as a slimy news reporter, there is one really dull character that just doesn’t work. That character is the police chief, played by Paul Gleason. This guy has no purpose in this movie except to say one stupid thing after another. This character is unnecessary and annoying and he almost made me give the movie three stars instead of three-and-a-half.

Put him aside and you have a nearly-perfect action movie. “Die Hard” is fast-paced, well-shot (great camerawork by Jan de Bont), wonderfully-acted, and intensely action-packed. I really enjoyed it and if the movie had put away that character of the police chief, I would’ve loved it even more.

Say Anything (1989)

8 Feb

say-anything-1040cs022412

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

In the 1980s, movies featuring teenagers were just as popular then as they are now. But they were very rarely given a good name. There would be sleazy teenage sex movies and deplorable slasher movies. Every once in a while in the ‘80s, there would be welcome exceptions—teen movies that feature solid writing and good development for their teenage characters, like “Lucas,” “Tex,” “Risky Business,” “The Breakfast Club,” and “Permanent Record,” among others. Then near the decade’s end, “Say Anything” came along and made itself known as what is not only a great teen romance movie, but possibly the best of its kind. It’s treated intelligently with well-developed, likable characters, credible situations, and well-drawn relationships that are emotionally involving. At times it’s funny, other times time it’s touching, and mostly it’s engaging.

“Say Anything” stars John Cusack as Lloyd Dobler, a recent high school graduate. Lloyd has no future plans as of yet, because there’s nothing out there that catches his interests except kickboxing. He tells one of his teachers that he’s looking for “something great, you know—a dare-to-be-great situation.” He’s a real optimistic guy and has his hopes up when he decides to ask out the class valedictorian Diane Court, said to be “a brain trapped in the body of a game show hostess.” True, Diane Court (Ione Skye) is very smart and very beautiful, and most people wouldn’t see her and average Lloyd together. But Lloyd gives it a shot and calls her up—I love the bit in which Lloyd dials her phone number and checks himself in the mirror before pressing the last digit.

At first, Diane doesn’t answer the phone—her father (John Mahoney) does. Lloyd asks him to have her call him when she gets a chance, and his tone of voice gives the assumption that Lloyd isn’t the only guy that’s called for Diane. “Is this the guy with the Mustang,” he asks. “Why don’t you just leave a message—that’s usually how it works,” he says. Lloyd repeatedly tells him his phone number. Then he hangs up the phone, shrugs it off, and quickly goes back to reading his magazine. But Diane does call Lloyd back and Lloyd asks her to a graduation party. At first, Diane tries to let it down easy, but changes her mind when Lloyd makes her laugh.

Diane is someone who needed a good laugh, as a lot of things are going on in her life. As she confides with her caring father, she’s scared for her future even though things seem to be going great for her. Really, her father is more excited for her than she is. What she needs is someone outside of her father to socialize with. She realized while making her valedictorian speech that no one at school actually knew her—they knew of her. She wishes she didn’t take any summer school courses. And so, when Diane agrees to go to the party with Lloyd, she’s able to finally mingle with her peers. And not only that—even though she and Lloyd have very little in common, she finds that she genuinely likes him.

The relationship between Lloyd and Diane is sweet and believable, but another key relationship is between Diane and her father James. It’s a trusting, confiding relationship between the two; Diane feels she can say anything to him. But when Diane wins a scholarship at a school in England, James is more excited for it than Diane is. Diane is scared for the future, but the father just wants her to deal with it. Then, Lloyd comes along and as their relationship grows, the father becomes skeptical since Lloyd has no real plans for the future except “to spend as much time as possible with your daughter.”

James is written with more intelligence than one would expect from a parent in a teen movie. He has his own problems too, and there’s a pivotal subplot involving a pair of tax collectors that turns his world upside-down. Mostly though, he’s Diane’s confidant. And he tries to keep his daughter close to him as they usually are, but the screenplay doesn’t turn him into a device to try and keep Lloyd and Diane apart. (Though, there is a time when they do separate, but for believable reasons.) And when he does get angry, he respects his daughter enough to listen to what she has to say, leading to one of the best scenes in the movie, as Diane tells James what happened between her and Lloyd on one of their dates. The scene cut away from when it looked like Lloyd and Diane were about to have sex, right to when Diane comes home the next morning—the way she describes to her father what exactly happened is a smart, well-written moment. It’s very rare in a teen movie that a teenager has this kind of relationship with his or her parent(s).

This is a great screenplay by Cameron Crowe (who also directed the film). All three central characters—Lloyd, Diane, and James—are well drawn out and easily identifiable. Every one of their situations seems believable, thus making it all effective. Aside from the great scenes I mentioned before, there are many other great ones—Diane’s amusing first talk with Lloyd, Lloyd’s best friend Corey (Lili Taylor) using her guitar at a party to get over a breakup, Lloyd meeting up with some guys at a gas station after he and Diane break up (they think they know a lot about women, even though they hang out with each other on Saturday night), and who could forget the later scene featuring Lloyd as he stands in front of Diane’s house and holds a boombox over his head, playing Peter Gabriel’s “In Your Eyes” in an attempt to win Diane’s heart again.

I love this exchange between Lloyd and Diane when Lloyd takes Diane home the morning after their first date. Diane says she’ll call him tomorrow. Lloyd: Today is tomorrow. (beat) Diane: I’ll call you later, then.

John Cusack is perfectly cast as Lloyd Dobler. He’s immediately likable and so sincere in his performance that it’s so hard not to feel for him. He has a great deal of optimism, humanity, and self-respect to believe that he deserves the prettiest and smartest girl in the class, and we’re hoping for the best. (There’s no surprise that the film’s poster features the tagline, “To know Lloyd Dobler is to love him.”) Ione Skye is wonderful and totally convincing as Diane Court—a better performance than her role in the 1987 teen drama “River’s Edge.” Both actors share great chemistry together. John Mahoney does great work, making James into a three-dimensional father character. Llil Taylor and Amy Brooks as Lloyd’s friends, and Joan Cusack as Lloyd’s older sister whom he lives with, fill supporting roles effectively.

“Say Anything” is such a treasure. It’s very human, very believable, always pleasant, extremely-well-written, and wonderfully-acted. It features a teen romance, but to be honest, it’s not necessarily a “teen movie.” This is a movie for all people—it’s a movie about relationships and trust. It doesn’t condescend to romantic comedy clichés—it tells it like it is. The result is a wonderful movie that I can’t imagine anyone not enjoying.

28 Days Later (2003) – 28 Weeks Later (2007)

8 Feb

28-weeks-later

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Somehow, I always had a feeling that those darn animal-rights activists would find some way to cause chaos, let alone practically the end of the world. In the opening scene to the horror film “28 Days Later,” a misguided group of British animal liberation activists break into a Cambridge laboratory and free a caged chimp, despite the helpless scientist stating the animals are infected with a dangerous, mysterious, extremely contagious virus dubbed “rage.” The contaminated chimp violently mauls one of the activists, who then turns on the other, and this is the beginning of the end.

Those pesky animal-rights people. They think they know best, but they certainly don’t know better than to go against someone exclaiming, “They’re infected with rage! They’re contagious!”

28 days later, the virus has spread even further. Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens in an empty, abandoned hospital after a comatose state that started before the disaster. Confused and unnerved, he wanders the streets of London and finds that it’s completely deserted and trashed. Then he is attacked by one of the “infected” people and saved by other survivors who inform him of what has happened and what the “infected” have become—they are wild, aggressive, raging, bloodthirsty beasts with not a sense of human left in them at all. Apparently, all it takes is a bite and a drop of blood to transform you within 10-20 seconds.

Jim and another survivor, Selena (Naomie Harris), encounter two other survivors—a middle-aged man named Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his young daughter Hannah (Megan Burns). They come across a radio broadcast from the Military that claims a group of soldiers are in a “safe zone” which keeps the secret to curing the infection. So, they all set out to find them.

“28 Days Later” is a gripping thriller with memorable visuals (such as Jim walking down the empty, isolated streets of London) and a surprisingly convincing dilemma. The way these infected “zombies” (for lack of a better word) come about is effectively complex, and all the more frightening. And these beasts are pure rage with only two things on their minds—flesh and blood. They’re very fast, unlike most zombies, and worse yet, they travel in packs. It’s one thing to have one or two zombies charging after you, but an army? That’s always fearsome.

Although, I have to wonder—if they travel in packs, then why don’t they attack each other? Wouldn’t they be hungry enough if no healthy people are around?

Even if “28 Days Later” were just about this infection and these zombies, it would have been a successful horror film. But this movie focuses more on its characters than you would expect from a film of this genre. You grow to like them as you get to know them, and you root for them to survive the infection, the zombies, and whatever comes next. And also, the film becomes more of a tale about human nature, once the characters find the military base where they think they’ll be safe. There’s something more here than what seems to be, and you have to wonder who can really be trusted in this changed world. Questions of evolution, the future, and the right to kill are brought up as well as, “Who’s human and who’s the beast?” That’s a question that science-fiction writers love to try and handle and we have it in “28 Days Later.” It’s predictable, but effective all the same.

“28 Days Later” is a great thrill ride. I was invested from beginning to end, and a lot of credit for that has to go to the director Danny Boyle. He shoots on video to give the film its gritty, almost documentary-like feel (and also because it’s probably more affordable). The camera-shaking element helps as well to keep the tension going in scenes such as when the heroes are trapped in a dark tunnel, and having to change a tire on their car quickly before the zombies catch up with them. The tension is present, as are the shocks that ensue.

Jim, Selena, Frank, and Hannah are all well-developed characters and they’re well-acted by Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Brendan Gleeson, and Megan Burns. All four actors do credible jobs, but more importantly, it’s the writing of these people that must be recognized. Writer Alex Garland remembers that a key essential element to a successful thriller/action picture/horror film is that you care for the characters as much as anything else.

Sure, the allegories can be very obvious, some questions needed some answers, and the ending is kind of a cheat in some way, but for the most part, “28 Days Later” is a scary, intelligent thriller that even gives something as ridiculous as “zombies” a good name.

——————————————————————————————————————

11later600.1a

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Who should be feared more? The contaminated zombies that want nothing more than to eat anyone they can catch up to? Or the government that orders a Code Red; to end the problem by picking off everybody to make sure this doesn’t leave the area? In the case of “28 Weeks Later,” both sides are equally threatening. They each bring about a certain single trait—one side contains merely rage; the other side knows less about human nature than they think they do. Both of them bring certain death.

Several months after the contagion that infected about half of the human race (turning them into rage-filled, bloodthirsty zombies—a word that is never used, for better or worse), the infected have died out and Britain is now under quarantine, as US forces have taken over. Settlers are brought in to repopulate the area. These include two kids—Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) and Tammy (Imogen Poots)—who had been on a school trip to Spain during the catastrophic outbreak. They’ve come home to their father, Don (Robert Carlyle), who now has to explain to them what happened to their mother, Alice (Catherine McCormack). In an unbelievable act of cowardice, Don abandoned his wife during a zombie attack to save his own life. (We see that in the film’s gripping, intense opening sequence—later, Don just tells the kids there was nothing he could do to help.)

Andy and Tammy sneak out of the Green Zone to their old house to pick up a few things, where they discover their mother; still alive, symptom-free, and catatonic. The military goes in to pick up the kids and also brings back Alice to a biohazard room to see if she has the Rage Virus.

I won’t be giving anything away by saying that Alice is in fact infected and that the contagion is going to start all over again, because if that didn’t happen, we wouldn’t have a second half. The first half is mainly for setup and character development. Aside from Don, Andy, and Tammy, we’re also introduced to Doyle (Jeremy Renner), a sniper whose conscience makes his job difficult; Scarlet (Rose Byrne), a medical officer; and Flynn (Harold Perrineau), a reluctant chopper pilot.

Then the second half arrives, and “28 Weeks Later” really kicks into gear with one long, action-packed, intense thrill ride as the virus becomes active again and the military are given one basic order—Code Red. Everyone is a target as Scarlet, Doyle, and the two kids are on the run from the soldiers and the newly-infected zombies.

The second half of “28 Weeks Later” is phenomenally thrilling and even terrifying, the further it continues. It doesn’t let up. The action scenes are superbly handled; they’re very effective and keep audiences on the edge of their seats. There are three key sequences that are equally exhilarating—one is the first sniper attack in which Doyle’s conscience gets the better of him once he sees young Andy running for his life among a mixed crowd of infected and normal, frightened people; one has the characters trapped in an abandoned car by advancing soldiers, nerve gas, and the attacking zombies; and another is seen in night vision as the characters try to keep track of each other, and you just know that one of the infected is going to show up soon, and that feeling alone gets you shaken up. “28 Weeks Later” delivers one hell of a ride.

Who is man and who is beast? That’s the allegory that all science-fiction writers love to use in some or most of their stories, and when it works, it’s very effective, as is the case with “28 Weeks Later.” It’s intense, thrilling, and scary. This isn’t for the faint of heart, but after watching this movie, you’ll be glad the nearest person is still human.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

7 Feb

superman-iv-still-121

Smith’s Verdict: Half-a-star

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The only reason I choose to give “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” a half-star rating instead of a dreaded zero-star rating is because the movie is good-natured and real little kids may find some enjoyment out of it. For everyone else, and especially for those who enjoyed the first “Superman” movie (I also enjoyed the second one and found the third one to be dull as dishwater), it’s a waste of time and a mystery that needs to be solved. That mystery is, who thought a fourth entry in this big franchise would have a script this lame and effects so terrible?

The story is this: with the Cold War getting everyone paranoid, a grade-school kid writes a letter to Superman. The letter asks that he do something about the nuclear weapons in the world. So what does Superman do? He announces to the world that he will destroy them all.

And everyone’s OK with this? No one’s arguing with him?

Anyway, Superman (Christopher Reeve) destroys every nuclear missile by launching them into the sun, burning them up. This gives an opportunity for archvillain Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman), with his annoying “tubular” nephew (Jon Cryer) in tow, to send a missile with a strand of Superman’s hair attached into the sun so…(sigh) Nuclear Man can be born and be ordered to destroy Superman. Nuclear Man is a Dolph Lundgren type who has the same powers as Superman and this should lead to some interesting action sequences, right? Not even close to exciting—just bad filmmaking.

This is the fourth film in the franchise and I ask the question: Wouldn’t the effects have advanced over time? How bad are the effects? Consider the first “Superman,” which had the tagline, “You’ll believe a man can fly.” Did we see any wires? No. Did we notice a green-screen effect at times? Yes, not so distracting. Now, consider “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.” The wires on the flying characters are visible, black curtains are seen instead of a space background when a scene is set on the moon, and I won’t even mention the bridge-effect. Also, the film suffers from bad editing to hide most of the effects.

Meanwhile in the story, there’s a subplot involving a love triangle between Superman’s secret identity—the nervous Clark Kent—and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) and the daughter of the paper’s new editor (Mariel Hemingway). This leads to a scene in which one woman needs to be with Superman and another with Clark at the same time.

Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman do what they can with their reprising roles. But Margot Kidder seems mostly gone through the movie, Mariel Hemingway should have known that a character with a line like “all men like me; I’m rich” isn’t interesting, and Jon Cryer deserves a slap in the face—he’s annoying all the time.

I could also argue that the production team of Golan-Globus is responsible for most of the film’s failings, but I don’t feel like writing another word about this terrible movie.

Buried (2010)

7 Feb

wwu9988fmvwb90rqbw87

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When I die, I’ll have made sure that my body is cremated. I wouldn’t want a burial. This may sound a little ridiculous, but after hearing about certain miracles that (how do I put this, exactly?) bring people back from the dead. If I’m one of those people, then I would be buried alive, and I shudder to even think about others buried alive. But like I said, that’s probably a rarity. Though still, I’d prefer to be cremated.

It’s a truly frightening concept, being buried alive. There you are, in a dark cramped coffin. Underground. Barely any oxygen. A real sense of claustrophobia. You can scream…no one can hear you. All of that is covered in the film “Buried,” which is about a man who is kidnapped and placed in a wooden casket underneath the desert. It’s an engagingly gripping thriller.

Ryan Reynolds stars in a convincing, effective performance as Paul Conroy, a truck driver working in Iraq. As the movie opens, he awakens in the casket with only a Zippo lighter, a cell phone, a flashlight, and a pencil. The last thing he remembers is his convoy being attacked and his fellow drivers being shot at. While inside his own possible grave and knowing that there is no way out from inside, he realizes that he’s been captured and held for ransom by his attackers. The terrorists order him to ask the US embassy for five million dollars.

While all this is going on, Paul desperately calls many people for help—the police, the FBI, the hostage crisis handlers, his wife, everybody. It becomes very irritating when those are really supposed to help keep asking all sorts of idiotic questions and wasting what little time there is while Paul is down there. In fact, I don’t even know who’s more the villain—the terrorists or the people who are supposed to help him.

Probably the very best thing about “Buried” (and the most amazing) is that its story follows through only inside that coffin. Throughout the film’s 95-minute running time, we stay entirely with Paul. There are no flashbacks, no scenes that take place on the other side of the phone calls, and nothing even above ground. Perhaps that’s not the most amazing part—the most amazing part is that the film keeps the viewer’s attention and interest. There’s a great deal of atmosphere and mood, told right away by the opening scene.

That opening scene comes after an old-school credits sequence that, along with a heavy orchestral score, promises something massive. The first shot after that is complete darkness, followed a few seconds later by light breathing, some thumps, and finally a lighter igniting to show the fear in the main character’s eyes.

But “Buried” also probably wouldn’t be as effective without Ryan Reynolds’ performance. That’s an odd thing to say, because I don’t consider myself a fan of his. Reynolds’ comedic work does nothing for me—he seems too bland and uncharismatic. But in this serious, dark role, he’s perfect. He brings about every right emotion, he’s absolutely credible, and is easy company for 95 minutes. Since we spend our time in the coffin, the other characters in this film are mainly voiceover roles, played by actors Stephen Tobolowsky, Samantha Mathis, and Erik Palladino.

The more claustrophobic you are, the less “Buried” is going to appeal to you. But this is an unforgettable, impactful thriller that gives me more reason as to why I would prefer to be cremated.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →