Archive by Author

Tex (1982)

29 Jan

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When American audiences feel that all a movie really needs in order to satisfy them is a crime caper and a chase scene, it’s rare for the 1980s that a movie like “Tex” comes along. This is a movie about real people in realistic situations and the whole movie is just about a few weeks in their lives. What’s even more surprising and great about this movie is that most of these people are teenagers. They’re some of the most engaging group of teenagers I’ve seen in any movie. They’re the characters of “Tex,” adapted from a young adult novel by S.E. Hinton. S.E. Hinton is an author who clearly understands teenage talk, problems, and behavior (she also proved that with “The Outsiders,” one of my favorite books). “Tex” is faithful to the novel and even more alert towards its teenage characters.

The main focuses among these teenagers are two brothers named Tex and Mason McCormick. Tex (Matt Dillon) is a simple-minded yet engaging fifteen-year-old and Mason (Jim Metzler) is a cynical, basketball-playing eighteen-year-old. They live alone in Bixby, Oklahoma. Their mother is long dead and their father is a rodeo cowboy who hardly ever comes home and forgets to send the boys money at times. So the boys have to raise themselves (well actually, it’s Mason raising Tex) and they do a good job of it. But they need money, food, and heat. So Mason is forced to sell Tex’s beloved horse and that brings Tex in a world of emotions and partial hatred towards his brother.

We meet their friends—Tex’s motorcycle-riding best friend Johnny (Emilio Estevez) and Johnny’s smart aleck feminist of a sister named Jamie (Meg Tilly) whom Tex has a crush on. Their father (Ben Johnson) is a strict man who doesn’t want Tex and Mason associating with his kids—at one point, he even commands Johnny to promise not to be Tex’s best friend anymore. What he doesn’t see (or doesn’t even want to believe) is that his kids are just as unpredictable as Tex and Mason. We also meet another kid named Lem (Phil Brock) who got a girl pregnant, married her, and moved to Tulsa in order to care for his new wife and the newborn baby. But he also deals drugs. Tex doesn’t realize this, but Mason has known it a long time, even when he seems very happy that his baby is born. This situation leads to a violent scene in which Lem and Tex, who is basically looking for trouble, are caught up in a jam with one of Lem’s customers.

The story includes a lot of conflict, conversations amongst the characters, and more. This is a movie about events in these kids’ everyday lives and because we believe in these kids, we stay focused on their story. How the story develops in “Tex” is more to the point than actually what happens when it develops.

“Tex” is very well-acted. Matt Dillon is appealing as this simple-minded central character named Tex, and Jim Metzler is great as his knowing-well older brother Mason. Actually, I believe Metzler has the more complicated role than Dillon’s, because he has to play surrogate father to his stubborn younger brother and constantly keep him in line. I truly believed in these characters so much that I didn’t really care much for the plot. They’re realistic teenagers given room to learn and grow and I was interested in watching them do just those.

“Tex” is a movie that seems like true events are occurring, and I think that was what S.E. Hinton was originally shooting for when she wrote the novel it was based upon. “Tex” is a great movie, though it’s sadly overlooked by many. I hope more people seek this out and admire what this movie has to offer.

Project X (2012)

28 Jan

project-x_photo

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Project X” is a loud, obnoxious teensploitation movie that at some points reminded me of the offensive, tasteless moments in “Porky’s”…but also the finer moments in “The Hangover,” “Superbad,” and “Animal House.” At times when I was nearly feeling unclean or rolling my eyes in disbelief, I have to admit I laughed, but more importantly, I marveled at the film’s bravery to go the extra mile. Going the extra mile in a teen movie like this should make me hate it, but instead, I found “Project X” to be funny, nicely-made, and even intense when it needed to be.

The film is presented in the “found-footage” concept, which I have to admit I am growing tired of with each film using this format—films like “Blair Witch Project,” “Cloverfield,” “Paranormal Activity,” and even “Chronicle,” a film released a month before this one. “Project X” is mostly seen through the point of view of a video camera used to document the ultimate, “game-changing” house party.

It starts out as a birthday party for likable, average high-schooler Thomas (Thomas Mann), whose parents leave him in charge of the house for a couple of days. You know the drill—throw a party, get in trouble, raise some hell, and clean it all up before the parents return. We’ve seen all this before; it can be traced back to “Risky Business” in 1983.

The hosts are the overweight, geeky, glasses-wearing J.B. (Jonathan Brown) and the loud, crude, vulgar, loathsome, sweater-vest-wearing Costa (Oliver Cooper). They recruit an AV Club member named Dax (Dax Flame) to bring a camera around and record the party. Thus, we see the setup to the event—the parents leaving, Thomas forced to drive Mom’s minivan to school, Costa sending texts to everyone in school to show up at the party, as well as Costa constantly bragging about getting laid. I’m serious—this kid never shuts up. He’s probably the most unlikeable teenage-movie jerk you’ll ever come across, and you just want to hit him with a blunt object. Things don’t get much better with him, such as whenever something is damaged, he constantly says he can fix it; “no problem.”

Then we have the party—we have beer, we have drunk teenagers dancing and making fools of themselves, and we get more than three montages of them having a great time to a heavy soundtrack. (These montages grow monotonously with each one.) But we also have some trouble, like you’d expect from…well, every teenage house-party movie. There are too many people than expected (“Of course; it’s ‘plus-one,’” Costa explains to Thomas), a few freshmen try to sneak into the party, and Thomas attempts to get lucky with the popular girl in school, not realizing that his best girl-pal Kirby (Kirby Bliss Blanton) is the right one for him. When will we—er, I mean, he—ever learn?!

That’s how the party starts out, if you can believe it. As the night goes on, like you’d expect, things go wrong. But in the case with “Project X,” things go very, very wrong. In fact, the movie becomes less of a comedy and more of a horror movie. Things get more intense, mostly unbelievable, with each new twist in the event. And to be honest…that’s kind of funny. Not knowing what’s going to happen, and just knowing that every new occurrence is going to be worse than the last one, makes “Project X” a cross between “Risky Business” and “Cloverfield.” Everything you couldn’t think of going wrong goes wrong here. And I won’t give anything away.

And the way the party ends—the final five minutes of the event—is just crazy. It’s so exaggerated and so violent that I realize that I did not merely see a teenage comedy—I saw a teenage horror movie. It’s so “out there,” but I loved it. And the point-of-view of the video camera really adds to the intensity.

Why did I like “Project X” when I despised the same material that made teensploitation films like “Porky’s” so popular? I think the main reason I liked the film was because with all the craziness that occurs in this movie (the party becomes a life-endangering event rather than just a drunken, loud, naked, sex-crazed house party), this is that rare teen film in which every dangerous deed has consequences. And no consequences will ever be as memorable as the aftermath of a crazed druggie with a flamethrower.

The Lost Boys (1987)

28 Jan

Lost-Boys_l

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

It’s always fun to see horror movies that use old-school elements and update them into fresh modern entertainments, and “The Lost Boys” represents an appealing, fun look at the definitive vampire stories. This movie has the traditional vampire elements—vampires stalk the night and kill for human blood, and for weapons to fight them off, wooden stakes and holy water always come in handy. Where “The Lost Boys” differs is the teenage outlook. The lost boys in the title are teenage vampires living in Santa Carla, California—they dress like punk rockers, ride through the beach on their motorcycles in the night, and live in a cavern (with a Jim Morrison poster on the wall). They just happen to grow fangs, fly through the air and attack people (and drink their blood).

Oh, and who do they have to lure people into their traps occasionally? They have a “lost girl” who looks stunning while the boys look threatening. The latest person that falls for this is a young man named Michael (Jason Patric). Michael has moved to Santa Carla (which is often referred to as the Murder Capital of the World) with his divorced mother (Dianne Wiest) and younger brother Sam (Corey Haim). While checking out the boardwalk on their first night in town, Michael sees the girl—Star (Jami Gertz)—at a rock concert and follows her until they stop for a chat. It’s then that the Lost Boys—led by David (Kiefer Sutherland)—introduce themselves to Michael and decide to let him join their crowd.

Sam, a comic book geek, visits the local comic store and encounters a pair of brothers who work there—Edgar and Alan Frog (Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander). They warn him of vampires swarming Santa Carla and they’re the ones to wipe them out. They give him a special comic titled “Vampires Everywhere.” “Think of it as a survival manual,” one of them tells Sam. “Our number’s on the back, and pray you never need to call us.” This proves to come in handy, as Michael falls in with the Lost Boys after drinking a little wine (which could be blood) and joining in on their bizarre activities (such as clinging on to a railroad bridge while a train passes by). But Michael himself is going through some changes—he sleeps during the day, barely has a reflection, and is starting to crave his brother’s blood. Sam freaks out, “You’re a vampire, Michael! My own brother—a damn bloodsucking vampire! You wait ‘til Mom finds out, buddy!”

This vampire problem is more of a way of Santa Carla’s nuisance, among the weird locals, mainly youths, of the town (most of which we see in an opening montage as The Doors’ “People are Strange” is playing). With that said, who would believe that these teenage punks who dress in leather and spikes could turn out to be vampires? But when they ultimately make themselves known, they mean business. These aren’t teenagers merely having fun—these are vile humanistic beasts that slaughter without mercy, while having fun doing it.

But hey, it’s nothing that some wooden stakes, garlic, and holy water can’t fix, right?

“The Lost Boys” is far from a standard horror film. It has a nice serious-satiric edge that fits nicely with the teenage-vampire-horror elements. The idea of these vampires being teenage punks living in a cavernous hangout (did I mention the Jim Morrison poster?) is fun enough, but then they are found deeper in the caves, hanging from the ceiling while sleeping. “I thought they were supposed to be in coffins.” “That’s what this cave is—one giant coffin.” The funniest parts of the movie are with the Frog brothers, whom Sam of course calls to help kill the vampires and save his brother. These are two teenagers who pretend to be Rambo and have suitable game-faces for going into battle. What’s great about this is that it’s not played for laughs—it’s the way that both young actors play them, as serious as possible, that makes these two characters enjoyable.

But of course, they are just teenage boys fighting vampires. At their crucial point of battle, their lives are actually saved by a dog. How embarrassing for them.

“The Lost Boys” is an immensely entertaining movie with wild ideas, a nice comic edge, and good acting. It’s also great to look at. The movie was photographed in rich, dark colors by Michael Chapman, and as a result, “The Lost Boys” always contains that grimness that should come in a vampire story. The night scenes particularly look fantastic. But that’s not to say the movie doesn’t have its flaws. For one thing, it’s a little overstuffed, especially with elements of Dianne Wiest as Michael and Sam’s unbelievably dim mother (she’s too slow to catch on with the madness), and Ed Hermann as a video store clerk who dates her, and whom Sam believes is the head vampire. Actually, that’s necessary. But then there’s Barnard Hughes playing a caricature of an eccentric Grandpa (“Read the TV Guide, you don’t need a TV”). He’s funny, but at times very distracting.

Of the actors, Corey Haim is very likable as Sam, and displays good comic timing while reacting to most of everything around him. Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander steal the show as the in-over-their-heads Frog brothers. Jason Patric is merely adequate as Michael, but to be fair, I don’t believe the character was written properly. But the real standout is Kiefer Sutherland as David, the leader of the Lost Boys. Sutherland smirks like no other and has a natural menace within him. It’s a strong performance.

The final act of “The Lost Boys” features Michael, Sam, Star, and the Frog Brothers as they fight off the vampires who storm Grandpa’s house while the mother and Grandpa are away. While it is exciting and has its share of awesome and darkly funny moments (they fill a bathtub up with holy water and garlic so that a vampire implodes inside it, damaging the plumbing of the house), I have to wonder if there was some other way this could have gone. Maybe this could’ve taken the direction of a psychological or philosophical look at what it means to be a teenage vampire, for example. But that was just a personal preference. Otherwise, the climax is relatively electrifying and quite fun. And that’s what can be said of the whole movie.

The Neverending Story (1984)

28 Jan

4713453351_92a459c777_z

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Neverending Story” is a clever, original, entertaining fantasy-adventure that uses familiar elements and creates inventive new turns for them. As a result, it’s an engaging adventure all the way through.

The most notable of these inventive twists is the lack of a standard villain. Instead of a high-ruling, magic, boring, evil wizard looking to destroy the fantasy world, we have something more complex. In the fantasy land called Fantasia, set in “The Neverending Story,” there’s an abstract entity known as the Nothing. It obliterates everything it touches so that there’s absolutely nothing left. It’s growing more powerful and about to destroy all of Fantasia. Now that’s a threat.

“The Neverending Story” begins in the real modern world as a bright, imaginative young boy named Bastian (Barret Oliver) is picked on by the school bullies who chase him into a bookstore. He’s interested in the book that the librarian is reading. The librarian tells him that the books Bastian reads are safe because they’re only stories. He mystically implies that this book—the Neverending Story—has a lot more to offer, and so Bastian takes it in curiosity. He skips school and follows the world of Fantasia, as the Nothing is a worldwide menace.

Sent to seek out a way to stop the Nothing is a child warrior named Atreyu (Noah Hathaway), who ventures off into the weird lands of Fantasia. Along the way, he encounters many strange, helpful creatures, runs into some heavy obstacles, and as the story continues and Atreyu is finding answers, Bastian, still reading the book, is starting to believe that these new twists and turns in the story are because of his own imagination filling in most of the story. And it seems like the people of Fantasia actually know of Bastian. Impossible, right? That’s exactly what Bastian believes. But things get stranger and clearer until it seems as if the one that can save Fantasia is indeed Bastian.

That concept is actually probably the most intriguing part of the movie—the idea that a child’s faith can control fate and save lives (and possibly along with a whole new world). And it’s also interesting that while the cowardly Bastian is reading a book in which a boy his age is the exact opposite of him, it helps that when Atreyu does lose confidence, Bastian is the one who has to gain it back. “Be confident,” Bastian says, now very much caught up in the story. He’s really telling himself that so that later he’ll have the courage to follow his dreams. That was a clever touch.

The creatures that Atreyu encounters are all appealing and memorable. In particular, Atreyu’s Yoda-like figure on this adventure is an insightful, optimistic, humble “Luckdragon” called Falkor, who looks like a dog but can also fly, with Atreyu on his back. There are other weird creatures in this movie (you can see a lot in the gathering in one of the early scenes—it reminded me of the bar scene in “Star Wars”), and my absolute favorite is a hundred-story-high, gentle stone creature known as a Rockbiter (guess what he eats).

The sets are very impressive. Fantasia sort of resembles Wonderland and features the same kind of strange characters as such, like the scientific gnome and the man riding a racing snail. The art direction is quite imaginative. And the special effects are quite impressive here, considering most of them were probably models, puppets, and animatronics. They’re all pretty convincing and they actually manage to take what could have been a silly creature like the Rockbiter and make him into a sympathetic character.

I also really enjoyed the story and how creative it was along the way. Aside from Bastian possibly becoming the real hero and the whole concept of the Nothing itself, there are entertaining obstacles for Atreyu to overcome. I’ve already mentioned this scene briefly in an above paragraph, but it’s the most tense—it’s a scene in which Atreyu must be brave enough to make his way through a magic gate to the other side; otherwise, he’ll be zapped and destroyed. And then there’s a wolf creature that’s bent on destroying Atreyu before he succeeds on his quest—he gives a speech about lack of human imagination that is surprisingly complicatedly effective for a children’s movie. And that sets up the whole final act.

This isn’t really an actors’ movie, though the two young leads—Barret Oliver and Noah Hathaway—are adequate enough. But the voice acting of the Rockbiter, Falkor, and G’Mork (the wolf) deserve praise, and strangely enough, they were all done by one voice actor—Alan Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer has a talent for voice acting and has many distinct voices, all of which give new personality to each character.

The ultimate weapon throughout “The Neverending Story” is imagination. Stories don’t create themselves. It takes a special creative mind to keep them going. Although, you could argue that this might not be the best message for kids, since the movie opens with Bastian’s father telling him to grow up and face reality, and then he ultimately decides to use imagination to save a fantasy world. But the best way to accept this development is to look at “The Neverending Story” strictly as a fairy tale. Who really grows up in a fairy tale? And for that matter, it’s not like we all forget our imaginations in the real world, no matter how old we get. If we didn’t, there wouldn’t be any filmmakers to create something as fresh and inspired as “The Neverending Story.”

The Freshman (1990)

28 Jan

freshman

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Freshman” could be considered a spin-off of “The Godfather,” since both movies feature a character who is not only entirely similar to each other, but also played by Marlon Brando. In “The Godfather,” he was Don Vito Corleone. In “The Freshman,” he’s Carmine Sabatini, the man that is said to have inspired the character in “The Godfather” (despite the fact that “The Godfather” was a novel before it was a film). In every way respectful, he is the Godfather. He looks like him, acts like him, talks like him, and has the same kind of what could be considered discreet authority as him. With Marlon Brando playing the role of Sabatini, it’s in the great tradition of the original character Corleone, and not taken as a ripoff or a cheap shot.

And what’s better is that “The Freshman” is not supposed to be as serious and epic as “The Godfather.” It’s a comedy—this is the joke; Brando pays a Mafia man extraordinary similar in every way to Don Corleone. And the screenplay and supporting actors don’t let him down.

The story isn’t necessarily about him, like how “The Godfather” wasn’t necessarily about the Godfather. But like the Godfather, Sabatini plays a crucial role in a young man’s life. The young man in “The Freshman” is a film school student Clark Kellogg (Matthew Broderick). He has left his home in Vermont to attend New York University to study film. Things don’t start out very well, as his luggage and money are stolen by thief Victor Ray (Bruno Kirby). When Clark goes to school, his film professor (Paul Benedict) doesn’t tolerate excuses.

Clark confronts the thief and demands his stuff back. Instead, Victor offers Clark a job. He brings him down to Little Italy, where Carmine Sabatini socializes and keeps his office. Clark can’t believe the striking resemblance to Marlon Brando’s Don Corleone, but Victor advises him not to bring it up. Clark has a conversation with Sabatini and it is like he’s actually talking to the Godfather. It intrigues him (and in some way, scares him), so Clark takes the job when the offer is made.

The job involves the movement of a giant lizard—a Komodo Dragon. In a very funny sequence of events, Clark and his roommate Steve (Frank Whaley) attempt to be discreet about moving this lizard from an airport and driving it (an especially difficult task) to an animal smuggler (Maximilian Schell) and his assistant (B.D. Wong).

But before he knows it, Clark finds himself a part of the Mafia family. Clark is doing what Sabatini and Victor tell him to do through a lot of convincing, and he’s also in the middle of a relationship with Sabatini’s daughter Tina (Penelope Ann Miller) that goes way too fast for him, even pressuring into marriage. Everyone is even doing favors for him, like subtly threatening Clark’s film professor for an A-grade. And things get him in more legal danger than he expected. What’s he to do?

“The Freshman” is a sharp, funny, well-written movie that really makes good use, paying homage to “The Godfather” (clips of it are even shown in film class as examples). And it features a highly respectable performance by Marlon Brando, who is truly marvelous in playing a variation of the iconic character he brought to life. It’s strange that Brando didn’t think as highly of the film as I do, as well as most people who saw it. It’s reported that he attacked the movie when it first screened, calling it trash. Well, Brando may be a highly dedicated actor, but he’s no film critic. “The Freshman” is very enjoyable.

The Big Easy (1987)

28 Jan

MCBR01_0

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Big Easy” starts out as a thriller, and then it turns into an erotic romance. Then it goes back to being a thriller again and then an erotic romance again, until the film finally becomes a romance/thriller. That usually comes rare in the movies, since in most thrillers, whatever romance develops isn’t quite as important as its own central story. But “The Big Easy” manages to keep consistency in both elements.

As you may have guessed, the Big Easy in the title refers to the nickname of New Orleans, Louisiana. And New Orleans is quite a unique city to set a thriller, as it’s one of the most mysterious cities, as far as I’m concerned. It’s humid and quite eerie with its many alleyways and courtyards. There had to be a thriller to come around and use it as its location.

“The Big Easy” starts with an investigation of the dead body of a Mafia (or “wise-guy”) member, found lying in a fountain. We meet our two main characters who are on the case. They’re a police lieutenant named Remy McSwain (Dennis Quaid) and an assistant district attorney named Anne Osborne (Ellen Barkin). They meet in Remy’s office and are immediately attracted to each other, despite Anne wanting to keep this a professional relationship. They go out to dinner that night, and she rightfully accuses Remy of being on the take, to which Remy responds by saying she doesn’t know how the system works around here.

After some bickering between them, they wind up forming a passionate love affair with each other, mainly because Remy is too persistent. But after a couple days, their affair ends when Remy is caught on videotape while accepting payoffs in an Internal Affairs sting. Anne becomes his prosecutor, which makes things pretty tense for both of them.

Anne takes her job (and burden) seriously, despite her affair with Remy, and she nearly puts him in jail. But with the help of some folks at the station, the evidence is destroyed and Remy gets off scot-free. Anne wants to forget about all of this, but Remy has arranged for her to be “arrested” and brought to his mother’s house, where a party is being held and Remy would like to dance with her, as he’s still in love with her. This is a great scene.

But soon enough, more killings continue and it seems like someone on the police force might be involved, and so Remy and Anne work together again. While doing so, their romance is further developed.

“The Big Easy” is great because it manages to take a string of these nicely-developed, interesting characters and manages to fit them into a thriller that is not one of those assembly-line thrillers, but a real interesting caper that gets more intriguing and investing as it goes along. I wasn’t expecting much from the story in the first few minutes as much as I was enjoying the company of these characters on-screen. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that I was really getting into the mystery. And when one of the characters that I have become accustomed to turns out to be involved with the bad guys, I was actually pretty surprised because I didn’t want that person to be associated. That lets you know a thriller is working.

The two leads are intriguing roles and real three-dimensional characters as well. Remy, we see, is both honest and dishonest in doing his duty as a cop. Sometimes he does the wrong things, but for what he thinks are the right reasons—like arranging a “widow and children’s fund” so he can use the money to keep his younger brother (Tom O’Brien) through college. He’s also cocky and very persistent, and that’s how he usually gets his way. But that doesn’t mean that Anne isn’t a tough cookie. She’s smart, fierce, and will do anything to get what she needs, and yet she falls for this guy because she notices his charm. Dennis Quaid and Ellen Barkin do excellent jobs at playing these characters, and their love scenes are some of the most erotic I’ve seen in a movie—it’s mostly realistic.

But the supporting characters are given time to develop and shine. There’s the sincere police chief (Ned Beatty, excellent here) who isn’t constantly arguing with Remy like most chiefs, but actually fools around with him because the two are good buddies. And there are the other guys down the station, constantly making wisecracks at each other, even at a crime scene. There’s Remy’s younger brother who comes in at the wrong times. And last but not least, in fact he’s my favorite supporting character—Lamar Parmentel (Charles Ludlam), a Cajun-accented defense attorney in a Panama hat and a summer suit.

New Orleans also seems like a major character in the movie—no wonder the movie is called “The Big Easy.” The feel of the city is just right—the people, the locations, the music, and even the food are given notice as colorful New Orleans elements.

Sure, the movie ends with a typical showdown involving Remy and Anne versus the revealed killers, but even that’s well-done. It’s not as long as most climaxes go, and it even does the smart thing by making it seem like the characters’ actions are in their nature. “The Big Easy” is not just a thriller, and it’s not just a romance either. Those expecting either of those will be surprised by a great movie.

Starman (1984)

27 Jan

images-1

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

John Carpenter’s “Starman” is an effective mix of science fiction and romance. It uses a science fiction gimmick to set up the two central characters (a man and a woman) and carefully develop a trusting relationship that turns into love. The twist in this romance, however, is that the man is an alien from outer space. The movie opens as the satellite Voyager 2, first launched in 1977, is floating through space. It contains a message of peace and inviting anyone or anything out there to come to the planet Earth. It turns out that something out there has found it and accepts the invitation. What exactly it is, I’m not quite sure. Yes, it’s an alien and we see it as a ball of light (or is a star?), but that’s all we know about it. Actually, that may be all we’d need to know.

Anyway, instead of a welcome greeting to Earth, the U.S. Government shoots down the spaceship, and the alien crashes somewhere in Wisconsin. There, it finds the home of a widow named Jenny Hayden (Karen Allen) and through a strand of her dead husband’s hair acquires the DNA of the husband and transforms into him. Jenny sees the alien in the form of her dead husband, knows that it isn’t really him, and is very frightened. However, Starman (who is never really called that in this movie) needs her to give him a ride to his ship, being kept and studied halfway across the country. If he doesn’t get there and leave the planet within the next couple of days, he will die. Jenny is afraid of Starman and thinks she’s being held against her will to drive him there. She tries a few times to get help, but then realizes that Starman means no harm. Starman doesn’t intend to frighten her, but doesn’t understand that taking the shape of her dead husband won’t calm her down—“I look like Scott so you not be…little bit jumpy,” he tries to explain after learning a few words in English.

Starman has a lot to learn, but is very smart and understands quickly. While on the trip, he takes in everything he notices. He learns to speak and eventually speaks English somewhat well enough, though not entirely. The way he moves is awkward, as he constantly is learning to control this new human body—whenever he looks around, he twitches quickly in every direction, like a bird. Along the way, Jenny learns to trust Starman and does her best to help him get back to his home planet. She explains more things about human life to him, like mortality and love. “What is love,” Starman asks. It’s at this point when “Starman” starts to become less of a science-fiction movie and more of a drama. Starman begins to feel genuine feelings toward Jenny and can’t explain it, and Jenny is able to explain what love is because the feeling does become mutual.

Jeff Bridges portrays Starman and it’s a great performance. He’s entirely convincing as an alien curious about everything he sees and uses body language and facial expressions to show what he’s thinking, as well as a partially-mumbled speech impediment. Bridges is winning in this role, and Karen Allen makes for an effective foil.

But because Bridges and Allen are so winning on screen, it makes the countless scenes of the Government hunting down the alien seem a lot less interesting. They want to experiment on it, to kill it if necessary, and the only one of the group (played by Charles Martin Smith) to realize that they’re going against the very message they sent out through Voyager. He’s the only one out of these villainous characters to appear as human, so to speak. But they don’t ruin the movie entirely.

“Starman” could have been executed as a silly sci-fi flick, but John Carpenter is smarter than that and creates an interesting feel for the characters and convincing dramatic moments for them. There are also some good laughs, such as when Starman uses his abilities to win the slot machines in Las Vegas so that he and Jenny will have money. “Starman” is more than it could’ve been.

NOTE: Don’t be put off by the title “Starman”—he’s never referred to by name.

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

27 Jan

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If you’re feeling happy, like you’re finally in control of your life after a hard day or week, “We Need to Talk About Kevin” is definitely not the film you want to see sometime soon. This is a film so bleak and disturbing that even the popular “slasher-film” genre would be considered watchable. If you’re happy or relieved right before watching this movie, this film will change that quickly.

However, this is undoubtedly a powerful film—skillfully-made and powerfully-acted. The horror adds to the drama that’s being presented, which makes the film more effective. There’s no reason why one shouldn’t feel unpleasant after watching this film. By that definition, I should probably hate it. But how can I ignore or pan a film that’s done well by the right people?

The story, based on the novel of the same name by Lionel Shriver, is told in a jumbled series of events, leaving us to piece everything together. But we figure out quickly what the central conflict is. As the film moves from past to present and back again, we see a woman named Eva (Tilda Swinton), who is not only depressed and practically lifeless, living like a zombie pretty much, but is also glared upon among society. In an early, disturbing scene, we see her walk down the street, minding her own business, when a woman she obviously knew in the past comes up to her and sarcastically asks, “Enjoying yourself?” Then she slaps her hard in the face and shouts, “I hope you rot in hell!”

How could this happen to a woman who keeps to herself? Well, we see flashbacks of what led to this terrible life, as Eva was married to nice-guy Franklin (John C. Reilly) and gave birth to her firstborn child Kevin. These flashbacks take up most of the movie, as we see Kevin as a baby, then a toddler, then a little kid, and then as a teenager. And right from the cradle, we know that something is definitely wrong with this kid.

To his father, Kevin is a nice, cute kid, but to his mother, Kevin is a budding sadist and knows exactly how to psychologically torture Eva, doing things so cruel that at one point, Eva can’t take anymore and throws her own son across the room, breaking his arm. But that’s just at his age of 6 or 8. When Kevin is a teenager, things get creepier, as we get more hints of his sadism—he loves to shoot his bow-and-arrows, he has an odd look on life that he isn’t afraid to express freely, and things get even worse when Eva suspects that Kevin might have been responsible for the glass eye the youngest daughter now has to wear.

It’s no secret that Kevin is a sociopath, as we see in present times the survivors of Kevin’s high school massacre. And this is Eva’s way of coping with it, and also having to deal with the people who despise her for what her son did. Some are hostile and brutal towards her, like in the scene I mentioned before; a few others, including a young survivor in a wheelchair, seem to understand that it wasn’t her fault.

From what we see in the flashbacks, it probably wasn’t her fault. It wasn’t even entirely Franklin’s fault either—he’s nice, attentive, somewhat ignorant but sweet-natured. However, you could make the argument that because he teaches Kevin to shoot a bow-and-arrow, that makes him responsible for Kevin’s mass murder. But you can tell the kid had a problem even before then, so it’s unfair to blame Franklin.

Lynne Ramsey, director and co-writer of “We Need to Talk About Kevin” makes brave choices here to make this movie far from ordinary. The past/present time-switches are one thing, but they’re also placed without pattern, which confuses but mostly keeps you wondering. There aren’t any parent/teacher meetings involving Kevin acting out in school—heck, we never even see Kevin interact with students. And despite the title, Eva never really does talk about Kevin with someone. Not with teachers, counselors, or even her own husband. Some choices Ramsey makes are somewhat grating (such as an early scene where Eva is participating in some sort of tomato festival, which looks like she’s soaking in a lake of blood), but other elements work very well.

Tilda Swinton, as Eva, is just perfect. You can easily feel the pain she’s going through as a person who is going through shock and simply can’t take anymore. Her son has committed a horrific crime, taken lives, and ruined lives (including hers), and now she’s stuck wondering if she really is to blame, or if she was the wrong woman to deliver the wrong child. Swinton’s portrayal is sometimes painful to watch, but that’s what makes it an excellent performance.

John C. Reilly is suitably wholesome, but the real supporting role to be noted is of course Ezra Miller as the little psycho himself, Kevin. If there was evil in this world, you can easily find it in this kid. Miller gives a creepy performance, keeping us uneasy as he (assumingly) secretly plans his attack. It’s a brave acting job.

“We Need to Talk About Kevin” is very bleak. Needless to say, this is definitely not for everyone. It may hardly be for anyone. This is not entertaining; not even by ordinary horror-film standards. But this horror-drama is far from ordinary. It’s here to give an effective emotional response, and it has succeeded all too well that even if it makes me feel uneasy, at least it did its job in effectiveness.

Chances Are (1989)

27 Jan

chances-are_l

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Chances Are” is a movie that, at first, doesn’t seem too original and sort of doesn’t know what kind of movie it wants to be, but then finds its footing soon enough and develops into a sweet, funny, lighthearted romance with a fantasy element that is crucial to settling fresh relationships put into the story. That element is reincarnation, which is used as a mind-swap situation as one of the film’s two main characters suddenly has memories of his past lifetime. See if you can follow…

The movie has its somewhat weak setup in which we meet a young married couple—Louie, played by Christopher McDonald, and Corinne, played by Cybill Shepherd. Shortly, Louie is killed in an accident and then, he finds himself in the same heaven that is seen in countless other movies. You know, the kind of Movie Heaven where there is smoke all around, everyone wears white suits, and there seems to be a wide-open space with a lot of people wandering around. These people are in line to be reincarnated. Louie is in such a hurry to get back to Earth that he runs off without getting his injection that apparently forces him forget his previous life when he enters his next life.

That’s an odd start and you’re not sure where “Chances Are” is gong to go from there.

Fade to 23 years later, when we see that Corinne is still adjusting to the death of her husband. She raises her daughter Miranda (Mary Stuart Masterson) and never remarries. She doesn’t even notice that the family’s best friend Philip (Ryan O’Neal) has always been in love with Corinne and even briefly told Louie, on their wedding day, about his feelings for her. She still has her love for Louie in her heart and is totally oblivious to see Philip’s true feelings for her.

But more importantly, we get an introduction to a 23-year-old Yale graduate named Alex Finch (Robert Downey, Jr.), who befriends Miranda and Philip and is brought home for dinner. This is when the movie starts to kick in—we learn, if we didn’t already, that Alex is Louie reincarnated. When Alex arrives at the house, he immediately begins to remember who he used to be, and he definitely remembers Corinne. This leads to an awkward but funny scene in which Alex freaks out at the dinner table.

Now, at the thirty-minute mark, the movie has really begun. Everything earlier was just buildup to introduce the characters. Maybe not much else about the plot should be said, but the movie has fun with the many implications and paradoxes. Miranda has a crush on Alex and the feeling is somewhat mutual, but if Alex is Corinne’s husband Louie reincarnated, then Alex could technically be dating his own daughter. Then, there’s the plot point in which Alex tries to convince Corinne who he really is. Then, there’s the plot point about Philip’s feelings for Corinne and how Alex reacts to them. There’s more fresh material (and fresh relationships) in the screenplay for “Chances Are,” written by Perry and Randy Howze, the writer duo who also wrote 1988’s “Mystic Pizza.” They, along with director Emile Ardonlino, take certain plot elements that are not particularly original (heaven/reincarnation/mind swap) and turn the story into something special.

The actors play this material with dedication and credibility. Cybill Shepherd is convincing as the widow who doesn’t know how to react to this strange young man, who could be her reincarnated dead husband. Ryan O’Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson are fine in their roles. But the real star is Robert Downey, Jr. His is the most crucial role—if he doesn’t bring weight and plausibility to his role, it wouldn’t be easy to follow the story, or believe it, for that matter. But Downey, Jr. pulls it off with a convincing performance.

“Chances Are” is a surprisingly effective film. It shows that artistry can redeem any subject matter. Credit the director and writers for adding lighthearted romance and humor into the mix, and also credit the actors for bringing conviction to their roles. They make the film smart and entertaining.

The Monster Squad (1987)

27 Jan

images-1

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

One of my favorite movies from my childhood was “The Monster Squad,” a 1987 horror-comedy/kid-adventure with a neat premise—think of the original Movie Monsters vs. the Little Rascals, and you have “The Monster Squad.”

I loved watching this movie when I was a kid. It was entertaining, had a neat story idea that came through, and couldn’t find a single flaw. Watching it now, I notice differences between the movie I loved as a kid and the movie I’m watching now. But I still enjoyed the movie. It’s not the classic I remember, but it’s still an entertaining watch.

The Monster Squad in the title are a group of savvy middle-school outcasts who form their own club in a treehouse, where they talk mainly about their favorite subject—monsters. They draw pictures of “spider with human head” in science class, have discussions of whether or not Wolfman can drive a car, and in initiating a new member, they ask questions like how to kill a vampire and “What’s the second way to kill a werewolf?”

But meanwhile, Count Dracula (Duncan Regehr) is alive and plans to rule the world. To his aid are a wolf-man, a two-thousand-year-old mummy that just gets up and walks away from a museum, and a Gillman who…is just there. There’s a lot of story to go with this plan, but I’ll try and explain. But don’t ask how all of these Movie Monsters got associated with it because it’s never really explained. That’s not the main concern and besides, who cares anyway? They’re all here. It’s movie magic.

Anyway, there’s a magical ancient amulet that maintains some sort of balance between good and evil in the world, which can shift if the amulet is destroyed. It’s indestructible, but every one hundred years, the amulet can become vulnerable until a young virgin can read a magic spell that will maintain the amulet’s power and the balance between good and evil. Dracula hopes to find the amulet and destroy it so he can rule the world.

OK…I don’t quite get it either. I didn’t think about it too much when I was a kid, but I can’t ignore it anymore. This story is much more complicated than any other with a magical element. The amulet is simply there as a McGuffin—a story catalyst to get the story where it needs to be.

Anyway, the monster club finds out about the appearance of Dracula in their hometown, and following an old diary with sinister information, they find out what’s going on and set out to find the amulet and fight the monsters, thus the appointed name the Monster Squad.

Maybe the kids in this movie are not the Little Rascals, as I metaphorically described—even though these kids hang out in a clubhouse and have a cute little dog with them, they are also slightly older than the Rascals, are modernized for their time, and cuss because they think it’s cool.

Actually, the kids’ constant swearing, and some occasions of intense violence, is the reason this movie was granted a PG-13 rating. Because of this, audiences didn’t know why they should see this movie—a lot of people thought it would be too scary for kids, while others thought the exact opposite; thinking this was a kids’ film. Therefore, the film did very poorly at the box office. But it did gain a strong cult following by people who discovered it on TV and practically demanded a 20-year anniversary special edition DVD, which they got.

What makes this film so special? Well, for all the “80s cheese” movies that people hold in regard, “The Monster Squad” does have a great deal of production value. Director Fred Dekker and his crew used every ounce of their budget to give the movie an epic feel. You can tell right away in a well-crafted opening sequence set in the 1800s, when Abraham Van Helsing (yes, the scientist from “Dracula”) and his band of freedom fighters storm Dracula’s castle to kill monsters. The interior-castle set is incredible, as it incredibly resembles Dracula’s castle in the original 1931 “Dracula” film. And the creature effects—skeletons that come to life and grab people—are legitimately frightening.

You could argue that this opening sequence is better than the movie itself, but let’s just keep going.

The special effects are quite good, particularly the creature makeup on creatures like Frankenstein’s Monster and the Gillman. Although, the Wolfman isn’t as successful—there are times when you can tell the actor is wearing an obvious mask. (But the wolf-paws look realistic.)

Everyone remembers three particular members of the Monster Squad—the leader Sean (Andre Gower) for his wits and bravery, rebel Rudy (Ryan Lambert) for his bad-boy style and the lion’s share of the monster slaying, and Horace (a.k.a. Fat Kid—well, at least he’s supposed to be a stereotype) for not only playing a stereotypical fat kid (I mean, why else would he carry around a slice of pizza if he wasn’t use its garlic to burn Dracula’s face?), but also for delivering the film’s infamous line after kicking Wolfman in his personal area—his reaction in shocking bewilderment, “Wolfman’s got nards!”

The climax of the movie—in which the kids and monsters battle each other at the town square—is pretty exciting, with one showdown after another without getting boring. How can you not love the part where Horace kills the Gillman with a shotgun?

Duncan Regehr has fun with the role of Dracula, and there’s also Tom Noonan as Frankenstein’s Monster. Dracula brings “Frank” back to life and orders him to find the kids and kill them. But the Monster instead turns on Dracula and winds up befriending the Squad, particularly Sean’s innocent, cute little sister Phoebe (Ashley Bank).

So what about “The Monster Squad” doesn’t hold up very well for me? For starters, the story is all over the place and is a little too much for a film that runs about 82 minutes. In fact, parts of the movie just seem rushed at times. We don’t get enough of this likable Frankenstein character (though he does have an awesome final moment) and the subplot involving Sean’s bickering parents (Stephen Macht and Mary Ellen Trainor) is overlooked once the monsters appear. Oh, and there’s also a recluse simply known as Scary German Guy (Leonardo Cimino) who, in one shot, shows an interesting background that we’d like to get to know about, but no.

Actually, that’s a problem with “The Monster Squad”—for a movie with a short running time as this, it’s pretty overstuffed. Additional stuff with Sean’s police officer father and his comedic partner (Stan Shaw), the human form of the wolf-man (Jonathan Gries, simply credited as “Desperate Man”), and the school bullies (Jason Hervey and Adam Carl) are glanced over and then forgotten without much of a payoff, with the possible exception of the bullies who witness Horace killing the Gillman and respect him for it.

Also, there are quite a few nonsensical moments. For example, when Sean reads a message from someone named “Alucard,” how does he automatically know that the name is an anagram for Dracula? And there’s a scene in which the Squad’s youngest boy—Eugene (Michael Faustino)—tells his father that the Mummy is in his bedroom closet, which he certainly is. Why in the world is the Mummy in a little boy’s closet?

And while Sean, Rudy, and Horace are all entertaining while portraying their stereotypes, the other members of the Squad aren’t as much. One of them—Patrick (Robby Kiger)—is simply on hand so he can have a sexy sister that likes to undress in front of a window that the boys can see with their zoom-lens camera from their treehouse. Oh, and he makes calling cards with just “MONSTER SQUAD” printed on them—no number, address, or anything. Who let this kid in? I can also ask the same about Eugene. Eugene is in this monster club and yet he closes his eyes whenever he gets scared. He doesn’t even do anything in the actual battle except scream and close his eyes at crucial points. (Oh, and he complains constantly, “Mummy came in my house.”) His cute beagle Pete is pointless as well.

I mentioned “80s cheese” before. That’s how you can explain other parts of the movie, like the central montage of the kids getting ready for battle while a cheesy 80s rock song by Michael Sembello plays. Actually, this montage is kind of fun—it shows how the kids are able to get their hands on wooden stakes and also create silver bullets. And the song isn’t that bad either. But there’s another song by Sembello that is just terrible—it’s a rap song (that’s right—a rap song) called “Monster Squad.” It’s one of the cheesiest things you’ll ever come across.

Did I leave anything out? Boy, I hope not, because this review is getting pretty long.

The bottom line is that, despite its flaws, “The Monster Squad” is still as entertaining as I remember it. The filmmaking is nice, there are a good dose of amusing moments, the monsters are entertaining, the kids are likable, and the final battle is quite fun. And yes, Horace, Wolfman still has nards.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →