Archive | 2007 RSS feed for this section

Superbad (2007)

1 Apr

Superbad-2007_gallery_primary

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Welcome back to John Hughes ‘80s teen movie territory…if John Hughes had more vulgarities and risqué material in mind. The territory is welcomed back with “Superbad,” made in 2007 but feels like it was made in the ‘80s, the time of many high school teen movies. I’d say that “Superbad” is (arguably) even funnier than any movie from that category you can think of. It’s a profane, vulgar, risqué, raunchy comedy with a heart and even a brain. Director Greg Mottola and producer Judd Apatow, as well as the writers (which I will mention later), deliver the sort of teen comedy John Hughes would make if he had help from Quentin Tarantino.

As I’ve learned, the writers of this movie—Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg—wrote the script when they were thirteen and discovering girls in school. The main characters of “Superbad” are named after them. They have different personalities, but they’re best buddies because they’ve known each other for so long. They are the loud, obnoxious, unpopular, pudgy Seth (Jonah Hill) and the sweet, sensitive Evan (Michael Cera, George Michael from “Arrested Development”). They’re high school seniors who are facing the last three weeks of their high school days and worried that they won’t have sex in the next three weeks, and therefore will go to college never to have had sex.

Seth is the most worried, talking nonstop about how much he would like to be the mistake that girls make when they get drunk at parties. He wants Evan to join him, but Evan is more sensitive to the feelings of the girl he likes, named Becca (Martha MacIsaac). Then, on Friday night, they are invited to a party by a nice popular girl named Jules (Emma Stone), whom Seth likes. She asks Seth to supply alcohol for the party.

That leads to a wild night of many misadventures while trying to get booze and make it to the party in time for Seth and Evan to get the girls they want. Having his own adventure on this wild night is Seth and Evan’s even-less popular friend Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who is unpopular even by them. His awkwardness/irritation steals many scenes and his fake ID used to help his pals get booze names him as—oh, yeah!—McLovin! Unfortunately, his attempt to get booze is upstaged and separates him from Seth and Evan, who attempt to get booze themselves. While they are at an adult party, trying not to be severely injured by the host, Fogell is cool with the most original characters in the movie—two partying cops (Rogen and Bill Hader, playing the Belushi/Aykroyd-type roles). They show Fogell a good time. Their adventures seem like their own movie—I loved watching these guys; they were hilarious and fun to watch.

It’s a teen movie through and through; with the exception of Evan’s mother, it’s a parent-free zone. Many of Seth and Evan’s problems ring true. Seth is upset because Evan is going to a different college than he is. After all these years of being friends, they may lose each other. These characters are real and convincingly played by the young actors who portray them. Michael Cera is terrific as Evan. He’s an average high school teenager who is unpopular, mostly because he’s friends with Seth. He delivers his lines as if he’s sincerely afraid he’ll say something stupid. He’s so sincere, it’s impossible to dislike him. It is possible, however, to dislike Jonah Hill because Seth is just plain loud and obnoxious. But there are moments when he reacts the way anyone reacts—for example, in a scene where he dances with a kinky older woman at the adult party, he notices “something” on his pants and acts like anyone else would react…though I don’t anyone else had this happen before. I won’t say what’s on his pants—I wouldn’t dare ruin the hilarity of that moment. The script never falls for the tired teen movie caricatures and makes the dialogue more profane and clever and the situations seem real. Another surprise: the popular girl Jules, Emma Stone, isn’t played as the usual snobby girl who’s out to get the unpopular crowd—she’s a caring soul.

“Superbad” is definitely not for everyone, especially anyone who would cringe at the sights of multiple penis drawings. But like Judd Apatow’s previous comedies, “40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up,” it’s a funny, smart movie—hilarious, well-acted, well-made, and “supergood,” also with a catchphrase you won’t forget easily: “I am McLovin.” Yes, he is.

Randy and the Mob (2007)

1 Apr

RandyandtheMob

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The best filmmakers don’t make the same film over and over. The smartest filmmakers don’t want to (or rather, feel they don’t need to). There is one filmmaker that falls into both descriptions. His name is Ray McKinnon, the Southern filmmaker/actor who directed, co-wrote, co-produced, and co-starred in the short farm comedy “The Accountant” (which won an Oscar for him and one of his creative partners—his wife Lisa Blount) before he took a serious, dark turn with the feature “Chrystal” (which starred Blount in the title role). Both films took place in the South, which McKinnon and Blount apparently have affection for.

So, after the art that was “Chrystal,” McKinnon, Blount, and Walton Goggins (co-producer of the previous films) decided to do something different with a new movie. The result is a lighthearted comedy named “Randy and the Mob,” a movie that mixes the mob with Southern droll. This is clever, and who better to deliver most of the film’s Southern droll than director/writer/co-producer Ray McKinnon as the title character Randy?

McKinnon plays two characters in “Randy and the Mob.” One is Randy, a good ol boy trying to keep track of his various businesses in a small Georgia town. The other is his twin brother Cecil, a gay man who stays in this town because he has deep respect for his family (despite a nosy grandmother). I guess the budget was so low that they couldn’t use split-screen to show both characters in the same shot. But strangely though, it didn’t seem necessary. We know both characters are there and they interact with each other convincingly. And it’s brilliant that McKinnon, like Nicolas Cage in “Adaptation,” is able to show difference in both characters.

In the film, Randy’s latest plan to keep the businesses going involves a loan shark. But his businesses aren’t making enough money and Franco (Paul Ben-Victor), a loan shark for the mob, wants to collect the money. Randy can’t deliver, but the mob has a plan for him. They will use his businesses to move some of their goods, arranging for mob enforcer Tino Armani (Goggins) to take care of things.

Tino Armani is a curious case. Played by Walton Goggins in a terrific comic performance that may remind you of Stooge Larry crossed with Karl Childers of “Sling Blade,” Tino is an uptight, barely emotional deadpan who emphasizes all of his words in a droll Southern accent. At one point, Randy wonders why he doesn’t sound Italian with a name like “Armani.” Tino addresses, “It’s-called-stereotyping. I’ve-dealt-with-it-my-whole-life.” Viewers may have a bit of trouble accepting this character (or rather, his voice) at first, but it grew on me as a truly effective comic character (not a “caricature”). Tino comes into Randy’s life and the lives of Randy’s family and friends. He impresses everybody with his insight on human life (he even has something to say about Randy’s nearly-unlikable attitude), the way he cooks Italian food, and how he keeps Randy’s businesses afloat.

This is all done with a real Southern authenticity. There are no stereotypes or caricatures to be found—these people seem like real people and true originals. These characters are the real source of the comedy in this movie—it’s not just the clever one-liners and slapstick situations; it’s the people. Cecil, the gay brother, isn’t given the stereotype treatment either—not even when he wears a pantsuit in the middle of nowhere at a family cabin. Then, there’s his life partner Bill (Tim DeKay) who won’t let people talk bad about Cecil, Randy’s depressed wife (Blount, wonderfully droll) who glares and stares whenever something is…well, off. And finally there’s the police deputy (Brent Briscoe) who won’t let Randy forget that he beat him up in grade school and would like people to know that.

“Randy and the Mob” is a pretty entertaining movie—well-developed, funny, and subtle

The Seeker: The Dark is Rising (2007)

31 Mar

images-1

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“The Seeker: The Dark is Rising” is supposedly based on the second in a series of popular fantasy novels by Susan Cooper—apparently so popular that J.K. Rowling actually used them as partial inspiration for her “Harry Potter” book series (I believe so, anyway). And this film adaptation is also proof that if you want a dignified, on-the-numbers book-to-film adaptation, don’t give the project to Fox. From what I’ve seen in “A League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and “Eragon,” adaptations that apparently have little to do with their source materials, Fox has little interest in expressing the interests of the followers of the original material, and just trying to give what they think the audiences will go for. This can’t be a coincidence.

But seriously, just say the project’s name, and a majority of the audience will come running because most are fond of the original. When you practically thrash the source material, and you show how you’ve done it in the film’s trailers and TV spots, you don’t get a very large audience. That would explain why “The Seeker: The Dark is Rising” was a box-office bomb.

I’ve read the original novel, entitled “The Dark is Rising.” It’s a great read. It’s a fantasy tale playing with Arthurian legend and telling a compelling story of a boy who discovers his true identity through an ancient magical process. A great film could have been made from this novel—this isn’t it.

Will Stanton (Alexander Ludwig) is a young American boy living in England with his huge family—he has many siblings, including an older brother who comes home from college and takes over Will’s bedroom, forcing him into the attic. Will is nothing special—he’s socially inadequate and very shy around girls. His fourteenth birthday arrives and he experiences certain changes—more than just puberty. He learns from a group of mysterious rich folks, who are actually a secret group of Old Ones who serve the power of the light, that he is actually the Seeker for the Old Ones. This means he has the power to travel through time and collect these mystical little trinkets called Signs that, when put together, can restore the power of the Light and vanquish the Dark before it rises again and covers the world completely in darkness.

Will’s main enemy in the army of darkness is the Rider (Christopher Eccleston). The Rider rides his horse throughout the outskirts of London, and sends many menacing subjects to stop Will from succeeding in his mission. In particular, he sends ravens, snakes, and a mysterious hooded figure, to be revealed later.

The way that the movie handles Will as being an Old One is very clumsy. See if you can follow this—the leader Merriman (Ian McShane) tells Will that he is the “seventh son of a seventh son.” Then why isn’t Will’s father (a “seventh son,” apparently) an Old One? What are the limits? Does the power just skip a generation or something? And wait a minute—Will claims he isn’t a seventh son because he only has five brothers. But wait a minute! He finds a hidden box in the attic where he lives, and his mother (Wendy Crewson) reveals that Will was a twin. Apparently, when Will and his brother were babies, someone came into the house (presumably the Rider) and stole the other twin away.

Are you serious? Will is just finding out now that he was a twin all his life? How does that slip by? But there you go—Will is a seventh son, and therefore, he is the Seeker. By the way, why is he the one chosen to be the Seeker? Were the other Old Ones just not special enough or something? I don’t get it.

Then there are the time-travel sequences themselves. Each sequence begins with the camera spinning around the actors until they’re suddenly in a certain location in the past. And then, Will winds up in places that should be interesting, but are unfortunately background spots for battles. Look at the scene in which Will and his older brother (Gregory Smith), who is a dropout in college and has just been controlled by the Dark. They travel through time together, and engage in one of the worst choreographed fight scenes I’ve seen in a long time. And never mind that we’re in a Viking village at this point—we have this to watch.

By the way, since we’re going with time travel and family involvement, there’s something that just bugs me. Will and his younger sister Gwen (Emma Lockhart) are suddenly back in time and in the middle of a slaughter. Will has to protect Gwen from the oncoming attackers while still trying to find the Sign. What happens after this grand adventure? They never talk about it again. They don’t even say one word to each other after that. Gwen never questions why her brother has these powers. She just sort of…forgets about it.

Other flaws include: A girl character that Will falls for, and whose intentions will be obvious to anyone with a brain cell; a forced subplot involving Will’s physicist father who had his own search of the Light and the Dark; and of course, the lack of explanation as to what will happen if the Dark wins—I guess the world will end. But then what?

There are a few things that “The Seeker: The Dark is Rising” does do right by its own standards, and it’s fair to point them out. One is that the film actually deals with the issues of a fourteen-year-old teenager having to play savior to the world, despite the fact that he is no superhero. There’s even a nice scene in which Will actually talks to Merriman about this new great task he’s been given. (Merriman, however, is no help—most of this role is to constantly tell Will that he is the Seeker. OK, OK, we get it already.) Some of the action scenes are pretty good—though, strangely enough, they have nothing to do with the time travel. The first time Will is chased by the Rider in the woods is pretty intense (although the camerawork is all over the place—extreme closeups, upside-down cameras). And also, there’s a frightening scene in which Will is cornered by security guards in a mall, who are actually ravens in human form working for the Dark, and a gritty sense of tension in the scene where Will is being interrogated and being told to give them “the Sign.” And also, there’s a scene involving giant impaling icicles that threaten the lives of Will and his family in the final act, before the big battle between Will and the Rider, that’s well-put-together and quite thrilling.

Of the acting, nobody really stands out except for Christopher Eccleston, and that’s because he’s more funny than frightening, particularly when his supposedly-menacing character of the Rider is posing as the town doctor to fool Will’s parents as he visits Will’s home. His jolly accent used to fool them just cracks me up, and I love his line as he leaves—“Cheer up, Will. It’s not the end of the world…not quite yet.” And he smiles during that line too! I loved that!

Alexander Ludwig as Will is OK, while Ian McShane as Merriman is just doing the same thing over and over again that be summed up in four words—“You are the Seeker”—because that’s practically all he seems to say for advice.

I’ve already mentioned a lot in “The Seeker: The Dark is Rising” and I may have left something out. The point, though, is that this film adaptation of the popular novel is not only a very loose adaptation, but also a muddled and confused mess of events.

NOTE: By the way, if they were trying to start a film franchise from these “Dark is Rising Sequence” books, then why start with the second story?

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

24 Mar

images

Smith’s Verdict: **

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Where do I even begin with “Spider-Man 3?” Maybe I can start by saying that there are too many plotlines and villains for one superhero movie. But the problem is that I didn’t care much for either of them. Whereas “Spider-Man 2” knew what to focus on and how to make me care for what was happening, “Spider-Man 3” is all over the map. So, all I had out of this movie were a few nicely-done special-effects action sequences…and not much else.

There are so many problems with this movie that I hardly know where to start. I guess I should start with Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson, two of the most boring characters to come around in a superhero movie. While they were likable, charismatic characters in the previous films, they’re just dull saps here. And is it really time for Peter to propose after only a few kisses? Their romance is so uninteresting that the waiter (Bruce Campbell) is the best thing about a romantic scene. And he’s the comic relief.

Now let’s look at them individually. Peter (Tobey Maguire) is still Spider-Man, but while he was conquering his demons in the previous films, everything just seems so hunky-dory for him that it just gets to his head so much that I’m not convinced when he supposedly “has a moment.” This is the movie in which Tobey Maguire did what he didn’t in the previous films as Peter Parker and that was, bore me. Then, we have Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst). What is her deal? She’s a somewhat talented actress who is constantly having an on-again/off-again relationship with Peter (oh, did I forget to mention THAT). Could she just pick and develop an emotion? After seeing her, I realized I would’ve loved to see more of Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), Peter’s pretty science lab partner who is put in jeopardy so Spider-Man can save her and make Mary Jane jealous!

Then, there’s the villain…and the other villain…and a third villain! That’s right—there are three villains in “Spider-Man 3.” Not one of them are developed or interesting enough. In action movies, it’s better to have an interesting villain to go with an interesting hero. But the hero isn’t interesting in this movie and neither are the villains. First, we have Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), an escaped convict who wants to make things better for himself and for his family. While running from the police, he winds up…some sort of testing area that isn’t explained. I guess the radiation and the sand in that pit mixed with him and transformed him into half-man, half-sand. This gives him the nickname The Sandman. Do we ever know how he feels? Does he have a personality? Is he excused from a contrived plot point, such as killing Peter’s uncle? The answer to all three questions is no. We never know how he feels, whether turning into a dust storm or becoming a gigantic sand mutant in the street. In “Spider-Man 2,” we always knew how the villain Doc Ock felt. We know very little about the Sandman in this movie.

Then, there’s Peter’s former best friend Harry Osborn (James Franco). If you recall from the previous film, Harry discovered that his buddy was Spider-Man and believes he killed his father, who was the Green Goblin in the first film. Now, there is a new suit and glider left for him (I suppose) so he can become the next Green Goblin, or whatever. There are a couple fights between him and Peter—only one of them is well-done on an action-packed level. But don’t people see these unmasked flying men fighting through New York? Nobody looks out their windows to see what the commotion is about? The second fight is…a fistfight. That’s right—a fistfight. This isn’t a “Spider-Man” movie—it’s an Abbott and Costello knockoff.

Then, there’s Venom, which should have been the most interesting part of the movie. It has enough back story to make its own movie. But it isn’t used well—and when it is, it’s not used well ENOUGH. You see, it begins when a slimy, black alien organism lands on Earth and follows Peter home—how did Peter not notice it with his spidey-sense? But I digress. Apparently, it’s some sort of parasite that attaches itself to a host and takes over a part of its mind. So it attaches itself to the Spidey suit, turning it black and changing Peter’s attitude. Peter suddenly believes he’s cool and struts down the city sidewalk, pointing and smiling as people pass by. Good grief—Peter isn’t even a convincing bad boy; he just seems like a dork. And then—I’m not kidding—he dances at a club. He dances all over the place—like I said, not a regular “Spider-Man” movie.

And then once Peter takes the alien slime off of himself and it lands on Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who conveniently (or inconveniently) happens to be Peter’s arch nemesis as photographer for the Daily Bugle. Now, he turns into Venom and sets out to kill Peter. This whole subplot could’ve been its own movie and could’ve been right. But no. Instead of a serious look at this otherworldly substance taking over an individual, we get that weird dance I mentioned in the above paragraph.

Have I left anything out? I sure hope not because I’m tired of writing this review and listing all of these faults. Oh, I suppose I should list some positive things about “Spider-Man 3.” The special effects do look great—I love the sequence involving an out-of-control crane. And a few people may see the film as a silly action picture. I enjoy silly action pictures, but this is pushing it for me. To wrap up this review, I’ll sum up “Spider-Man 3” in one noun—mess!

Transformers (2007)

28 Feb

images

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Michael Bay is a director with maybe too much ambition with his work, to say the least. He doesn’t even hold a good track record with his films (examples are “Bad Boys,” “Armageddon,” “Pearl Harbor,” and “Bad Boys II”). He has many trademarks of his own—swift camera movements, frantic editing, two-and-a-half hours of running time, colorful stereotypes, intense slow motion shots of characters, tight close-ups, intense music cues, and even more notably, over-the-top visuals. He made one terrific film so far out of all of those elements—a solid thriller called “The Rock.” Now here’s Michael Bay’s “Transformers,” which almost serves as a parody of Michael Bay’s earlier films. We get just about every trademark from Michael Bay, with a handful of CGI metal robots called Transformers, based upon a popular toy franchise by Hasbro.

This is a totally preposterous and goofy-fun movie in which good Transformers and evil Transformers fight on our world, and a group of central human characters are caught in the middle of the war and race to aid the good Transformers (called Autobots) in holding the key to Earth’s survival.

These Transformers are marvelous creatures to behold. They fold and unfold like Rubik’s cubes from automobile to giant robot and then back again. Both races of robots are drawn to Earth because decades ago, the fearsome leader of the evil Transformers (called Decepticons) named Megatron crash-landed there. It is said now that he holds the All-Spark, a cube that is the key to the rebirth of their dying home planet Cybertron.

The central human characters are introduced in different subplots. We meet armed services, including Sgt. Lennox (John Duhamel) and Tech. Sgt. Epps (Tyrese Gibson), who are attacked by a helicopter that transforms into a Decepticon. These guys are under the impression that this ten-foot-tall metal robot can be put down easily with automatic gunfire, and much later, they’re fighting a scorpion-like Decepticon in the middle of the desert. Then we meet the Secretary of Defense (Jon Voight) who is trying to figure out what exactly attacked the armed forces, with help from computer whizzes, including the beautiful, Australian blonde Maggie (Rachael Taylor) and optimistic hacker Glen (Anthony Anderson, overacting but funny). The political satire of this movie is that the Secretary of Defense is seemingly running the country while the President is relaxing on Air Force One, asking for a Ding-Dong.

There’s another character that is crucial to the story. His name is Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and he’s a teenager who just bought his first car—a rundown yellow Camaro with racing stripes and apparently, a mind of its own. He uses it to try and pick up the popular girl in school named Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox, not entirely convincing as a high school student, but wow, is she great to look at) and the radio pretty much plays what Sam is thinking, kind of like Herbie the Love Bug. But it turns out that the car is actually an Autobot named Bumblebee. His job is to protect Sam from the Decepticons because apparently, he holds the key to Earth’s survival—a pair of glasses with a sort of map imprinted in the lenses that leads to the All-Spark (I would like to explain why there is a map on the glasses, but I’m almost getting exhausted trying to piece together the plot myself).

Oh, and I should also mention the character of the secret ops guy (John Turturro) who runs a top-secret government facility called Sector Seven and is holding the now-frozen Megatron underground. He has the priceless line, “Do you want to lay the fate of the world on a kid’s Camaro?”

All of these character plotlines lead down to the big epic battle between the Autobots and the Decepticons. And that’s when I started to grow tired and bored. I loved the setup—the characters were colorful and appealing, if not fully-developed, and the action sequences in which the armed forces shoot up Decepticons in the desert is fun. And these Transformers look great. Created by Industrial Lights and Magic, they are truly sights to behold. In their true forms, you can still see the outside parts of the automobile they transformed from—hubcaps, windshields, and all metal. Their movements are incredible and their transforming is amazing. There is also a spiderlike robot that creeps around Air Force One, hacking into the computer for information about the All-Spark. I loved watching these creations but even so, it was hard to pay much attention to the big battle in the final half. The robots fight each other in the big city, causing millions of dollars damage to buildings and cars. The military is firing at the Decepticons. The music is extremely intense. I’m thinking, “OK, OK, calm down a little bit.”

This, I think, is Michael Bay’s weakest point—giving us never-ending epic battles that don’t catch our attentions. The movie is 144 minutes. By the way, I have to ask—why does Michael Bay always love his films to be two-and-a-half hours long? Does he think one of his films will be the next big epic, this side of “Titanic?”

The CGI is impressive in the climax, but I think if the scene was trimmed down in the editing a little bit, this movie would’ve been something great. Instead, “Transformers” is only something good and worthy of three stars.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

20 Feb

order_phoenix_dvd_1211

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is the fifth film in the “Harry Potter” series. It is also my least favorite in the franchise. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy it. I am giving it three stars. But with a new Harry Potter film, you expect more than this.

“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” begins as now-15-year-old Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is sitting by himself on a swing set in a playground. He feels—as we do—that opportunities for nicer, more innocent times are gone. It’s especially so when Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is back and looking to make himself known to Hogwarts’ world again. Nobody believes Harry saw him rise and even fought him at the end of “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,” except Dumbledore (Richard Gambon). A minor problem with this film is that it can’t possibly stand on its own. There are two many references to past events—this is not a good film to start with if you’re a newcomer to the series. But that’s not exactly a problem, since this is made for regular viewers of the “Harry Potter” series.

Harry is in trouble for saving his cousin Dudley from a vicious Dementor using a Patronus spell. You see, it’s against the law to use magic outside of Hogwarts School. Harry is called to the Ministry of Magic for a hearing to see if he should be allowed to go back to Hogwarts for his fifth year. Things don’t go so well at first because most of the jury still doesn’t believe him or Dumbledore about Voldemort’s return to life. But nevertheless, Harry wins appeal from most of the jury and is allowed to return to Hogwarts.

But Voldemort is back and Harry learns that the battle lines are drawn. There is a defense group known as the Order of the Phoenix while Voldemort raises his army of Death Eaters. Harry wants to fight, but the Order won’t allow him since he’s “just a boy.” At Hogwarts, things go really bad due to the arrival of Delores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), sent from the Ministry of Magic to put an end to this “conspiracy” and keep all students in line. She seems sweet, but she is a total nightmare that eventually costs Dumbledore his job. Then she sets her sights on Harry, who in the meantime, is gathering his own army with his friends. Harry teaches many of his friends to improve on spells to defend themselves against the dark arts, since Umbridge won’t allow them to be taught in class anymore.

Harry is still growing as a character. He even has his first kiss with the attractive Cho (Katie Leung). “How was it,” his friend asks. “Wet.” It’s not much, but it shows that these characters are more than young wizards—they’re teenagers.

The problems I had with “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” are mild, but they stop me from giving a rating higher than three stars. One is, Harry’s best friends Ron and Hermione (Rupert Grint and Emma Watson) are more like bystanders this time around—they aren’t given anything special to do, save for a few short scenes of humor. And it’s annoying when Hermione is correcting Harry for something he knows is right. That’s where young Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch) comes in. Another problem I had—I’m sorry, but I didn’t like Luna Lovegood. It’s a one-note-loony role that just plain annoyed me.

Also, there are many moments in the story that just felt rushed, which is odd considering the running-time length. Though, to the film’s credit, the brisk pacing is welcome.

But, in the new installments, we’ll get the unforced feel of unity with Harry, Ron, and Hermione that we should have gotten since four movies have already passed by. I don’t want them to be stooped to artificiality.

But I did like Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, as I always do. Alan Rickman has more creepy moments as Professor Snape—even creepier than Fiennes’ Voldemort. I love the performance from Imelda Staunton as Umbridge, bringing menace and sweetness to the role. And I love the final half in which Harry and his friends (including the nervous Neville Longbottom from earlier films) fight against Death Eaters (including feisty, deadly Bellatrix Lestrange, played by Helena Bonham Carter) and the brief mental battle between Harry and Voldemort which shows more emotion than you’d expect. I am recommending “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” but I have to say, I wanted more magic.

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.

Hot Rod (2007)

3 Feb

hot-rod-2007

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I’m a huge fan of the SNL Digital Shorts and the three guys who make them—Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccona, and Akiva Schaffer. Their “Lazy Sunday” and “In A Box” creations are some of the funniest videos I’ve ever seen. Even with its occasional racy material, these videos are so upbeat, positive, and just so darn funny. Even their stupidest gags get laughs.

So with me being a huge fan of these guys—who call themselves The Lonely Island—you can imagine how hyped I was when I found out about a movie created by them. Well, they did, and it’s an energetic, cheerfully funny little movie called “Hot Rod.”

It’s a pure “family affair”—Andy Samberg is the film’s star, Jorma Taccone is a supporting character, and Akiva Schaffer is the film’s director. Samberg stars as Rod Kimble, a novice stuntman who doesn’t go a day with nearly killing himself with a crazy stunt. As the movie opens, he attempts to jump a trailer when the takeoff ramp falls apart and Rod falls straight over. But it’s OK—he’s fine. So he can do practically the same thing every day. He never gives up and his failures don’t discourage him. He knows that he will become a great, infamous daredevil (“infamous” for the right reasons, of course).

Oh, and he also sports a fake mustache during each of his stunts, because he thinks it makes him look professional.

Rod is also trying to earn respect from his jerk of a stepfather—Frank (Ian McShane). Every now and then, Rod and Frank engage in a duel (with Rhodesian fighting sticks and throwing stars) to which Frank always wins. But now, it is learned that Frank is dying due to a heart condition. If he dies, Rod will never have gained his respect. So what’s his plan? Raise 50 thousand dollars to pay for Frank’s life-saving heart operation and make him healthy enough so that he can beat him to death! How’s he going to do it? Jump 15 buses, he explains to his crew—his nerdy but loyal stepbrother Kevin (Taccone) and the less ambitious Dave (SNL’s Bill Hader) and Rico (Danny McBride). Rico responds by saying, “Come on, Rod. That’s nearly as much as Evel Knievel jumped.” Well, it’s actually one more than Evel Knievel jumped.

As you can tell, the story is all over the place. It gets crazier during its progression, with Rod raising money to fund the big jump by engaging in stunts like being blown up, set on fire, and even acting as a human piñata. But this is one of the reasons it’s so funny—the zanier the story gets in a lowbrow comedy such as this, the better. And it’s also funny because it’s sincere. It never becomes mean-spirited or condescending in the slightest. It’s just telling a lighthearted story about a likable ne’er-do-well racing to succeed in the most improbable situations—not only with the stunts and the big jump that he must conquer in order to raise enough money to save his stepfather (just so he can beat the crap out of him), but also with attempting to score with the pretty young woman next door named Denise (Isla Fisher) who joins the crew because she likes Rod’s determination. But unfortunately, she has an obnoxious jerk of a boyfriend—played by Will Arnett, who kind of overdoes it with his performance, but I’ll take it—who drives a Corvette, constantly looks down on Rod, and even at one point leaves his girlfriend on a date so he can punch an old buddy in the groin. (By the way, I love his line to Rod and Denise when he leaves—“Don’t you two go falling in love while I’m gone.”) Will Rod get the girl away from this jerk?

Of course he will.

And there’s just a ton of flat-out funny gags scattered throughout “Hot Rod.” This mess of a movie got even bigger laughs out of me in a theater than the overrated Will Ferrell sports-comedy “Talladega Nights.” In just about every scene of this movie, there’s a new gag. Some of them are failures (the enunciating of the word “whiskey” bit shown in the film’s trailers gets a bit old before it finishes), but like with comedies such as “Airplane,” where there’s a gag just about every minute, you wait for the next one to come along and make you laugh. While there are a few gags that didn’t work, many others made me laugh out loud. A few examples—I won’t give away all of them to make the review funnier—include a theoretical discussion about whether or not a taco would beat a grilled cheese sandwich in a fight, a nasty sight gag involving Bill Hader’s Dave in a slight injury due to an acid trip, and (undoubtedly the biggest laugh of the movie) a parody of the punch-dancing scene in “Footloose” that results in the longest, funniest fall in movie history (I will say no more about that—watch the movie; you’ll laugh your ass off).

Andy Samberg has a likable comic presence and makes Rod instantly sympathetic. His goofiness is enough for good laughs as well—he’s as capable as Jim Carrey and Eddie Murphy when it comes to comic actors in comedic leading roles. Jorma Taccone, Bill Hader, and Danny McBride have a lot of great moments to share as Rod’s three-man working crew. And give Sissy Spacek credit for playing her role as Rod’s mother completely straight.

“Hot Rod” is a modest, very funny movie that not only makes me excited for the next Lonely Island video, but mostly for the next Lonely Island movie. Let’s hope these three get a new movie idea together very soon.

Home of the Giants (2007)

29 Jan

500full

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Home of the Giants” may seem to you like an average high school basketball movie in the same league as “Hoosiers” (indeed, this film takes place in Indiana), but you’d be wrong to assume that. Actually, describing what it really is might lose the film of its dignity, but I’ll try and make it seem as special as possible, because the truth is I really liked this movie.

“Home of the Giants” is actually a coming-of-age high school drama mixed with a crime thriller. It involves two teenage friends—a basketball jock, Matt (Ryan Merriman), who plays for his team called the Giants, and his entourage, Gar (Haley Joel Osment), who writes for the school paper. Matt is the big man on campus and can pretty much get away with anything. That’s how Gar sees Matt—he looks to Matt like a role model just as Matt looks to his ex-con older brother Keith (Kenneth Mitchell) as a role model. Keith has a job for Matt, and Matt fills Gar in on the plan to break into a possible drug dealer’s house and steal what is said to be a fortune. Gar isn’t so sure at first, but Matt talks him into it. But on the night of the heist, the guy (Brent Briscoe) comes home and it seems that Keith has cut off a finger or two while interrogating him. The days after, Matt and Gar find themselves in hot water, as the ticked-off guy stalks them and sends threatening notes, saying he plans to cut off Matt’s fingers as well. As you can plainly tell from that plot description, “Home of the Giants” is not your typical teen film.

The story development for “Home of the Giants” is smarter than you might think. The main conflict that these two kids face, other than the consequences they fear for themselves, is the difference between their friends and their heroes. If you help the person you look up to the most, why exactly are you doing that? Would he help you in a jam to return the favor? Is this really the person you’d want to be like? Etc. This is what makes “Home of the Giants” more of a coming-of-age story than anything else. The basketball scenes and the crime drama mesh surprisingly well together, and lead to a great payoff that comes with the final basket—I hardly ever felt as much suspense as I did with the final basket at the end of the final basketball game in a movie. Even the little details feel authentic, compared to most movies that feature high school sports. For example, neither of the boys’ fathers is abusive or a one-dimensional jerk that just slows things down for them. They have their reasons for worrying about their sons.

But there’s one very important element that I want to bring up. Whenever Matt wants Gar to do something that Gar doesn’t really want to do, Matt pulls the “I thought we were friends” card and Gar goes through with it. I’ve been through that situation many times with a high school friend before. Back in high school, I was an average guy and I was constantly caught between my friends, my heroes, and those who just tried to drag me down. I related to the character of Gar throughout this movie.

Speaking of whom, Haley Joel Osment, as Gar, has stepped out of his bright-little-boy roles and is acting his age. His acting isn’t as awkward as his obvious early-puberty stage in “Secondhand Lions.” As a conflicted high school student, Osment is totally convincing and sympathetic. Ryan Merriman is solid and winning as Matt, Kenneth Mitchell is suitably smarmy as Keith, and Brent Briscoe, almost reprising his similarly-slimy bad-guy role in “A Simple Plan,” has a good moment or two when he’s not merely looking intimidating. I wish that cute Danielle Panabaker, as Gar’s potential girlfriend Bridgette, had more to do, but she makes the most of her scenes.

“Home of the Giants” may sound like an odd idea for a coming-of-age high school drama, but it’s handled nicely and it’s neither dumb nor boring. The acting is solid, the direction is well-done, and the message of friends and heroes is very effective. This is a great film for teenagers who should seek this out, because it will be worth their time, and I think they’ll even see themselves portrayed here as well.

Bridge to Terabithia (2007)

23 Jan

images

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Bridge to Terabithia” had been marketed as a  “Harry Potter”/”Narnia” clone with a magical world and a promise of fantastic adventure. This is most puzzling to those who were/are fans of the popular novel of the same name (it’s assigned reading in most grade schools), which is said to be the film’s predecessor. But could you really tell that from the film’s trailers, TV spots, or even its poster?

I’ve read the book—the 1977 Newbery Award winning children’s book by Katherine Paterson. It’s a wonderful read about acceptance, imagination, and friendship—not monsters, action, and magic. “Bridge to Terabithia” is co-written (with Jeff Stockwell) by Katherine Paterson’s son David, so how could it be that “Bridge to Terabithia” has transformed into a low-rent “Narnia?” The answer: it hasn’t. Not at all. This film adaptation of “Bridge to Terabithia” is a wonderful film, marketed in such a deceptive way that those who know the film only by its marketing will be as puzzled as readers of the book, if not more puzzled.

“Bridge to Terabithia” is one of the best live-action family films in the past ten years. It’s such a rich and meaningful movie that keeps the same themes of acceptance, imagination, and friendship brought upon by the original book. How it was marketed the way it was is dishonorable, but I guess they had to get the kids to the box office by showcasing the film’s special effects. But while there are elements of fantasy (a central action sequence takes place), they exist to serve and support the story. There’s far more than what you see in the film’s trailer.

The story features Jess Aarons (Josh Hutcherson), a lonely boy from a poor farming family. Jess loves to draw and can draw very well, though his parents don’t support his talent. At school, he takes a great deal of bullying and tries to prove himself worthy on the first day of school, by competing in a recess running race. But he comes in second, next to Leslie Burke (AnnaSophia Robb), the new girl in class.

Despite having an earnest, energetic presence, Leslie is an outsider too. Her parents are authors working on their new book, she’s as creative as Jess (only through writing and creating stories), and her family doesn’t own a TV set, which of course makes her a subject of ridicule by the other kids. At first, Jess is as disrespectful toward her as the other kids. But their similar talents of creativity—his drawings and her writing—help form a friendship between the two. They find an old swinging rope that they use to go to the land across the nearby river, where they create the imaginary world of Terabithia, where squirrels are furry beasts, birds are giant vultures, and trees are trolls. Every day, they swing across the rope into Terabithia and come up with new adventures.

Sure, that stuff isn’t in the original book, nor is the central action sequence in which Jess and Leslie fight these figures all at once. But the element of imagination was present and is upgraded for this film adaptation. Since they don’t hurt the story at all and continue to support the story’s themes, it’s acceptable. Even that action sequence serves a purpose—without giving too much away, it serves as a metaphor for facing fears and earning respect. Terabithia is an example of using imagination to escape everyday life—the world of neglectful parents, strict teachers, and harsh school bullies. Some of these creatures that Jess and Leslie create in their mind are based on some of these people—for example, the squirrel monster is based upon one of the bullies.

And I should also note how good the CGI looks. It isn’t used often, but when it appears, it’s used very well.

The family aspect of “Bridge to Terabithia” is very effective, particularly with Jess’ home life. He comes from a farming family and his family can’t afford much. So since money is an important value in his family’s life, his father is strict about his son keeping with the program and getting his head out of the clouds. The father doesn’t approve of Jess’ artistic ability, even though Jess tries to impress him. These scenes between Jess and his father are powerful, and the father isn’t a one-dimensional caricature. He does care about his son, and only wants what he thinks is best for him (and the rest of the family).

Josh Hutcherson and AnnaSophia Robb both do incredible jobs and have the charismatic screen presence and chemistry to succeed in playing these roles. You really buy them as great friends and individually troubled kids. The supporting cast is excellent—Robert Patrick delivers a strong performance as Jess’ strict (but not uncaring) father, Zooey Deschanel is lively as Jess’ music teacher whom Jess has a small crush on, and Bailee Madison is good as Jess’ adorable little sister May Belle. Also of note is Lauren Clinton, who portrays a convincing bully with a troubling family life. (The other bullies are one-dimensional.)

There’s something I want to mention before I get to the main conflict that takes up the final act of the movie. The music, composed by Aaron Zigman, is absolutely amazing—particularly the central music score that opens and closes the film. It’s memorable, it’s catchy, and it’s magical. I was humming this tune just a few minutes after I saw the film.

One very important part of the original book is a tragic accident. Without saying too much about it, because the less said the better (if you haven’t read the book), this movie doesn’t shy away from it to keep its friendliness. It tells this story straight and shows just how these characters deal with it. It really hit me hard. Again, without giving too much away, the back half of this movie is extraordinary in the way these people deal with this ordeal. If at first you feel denial after a death in your life, it helps to talk about it and share your feelings.

“Bridge to Terabithia” is grounded more into reality than into fantasy, despite what the marketing suggests. I guess they couldn’t find a more effective way to advertise the film and get kids invested, so they went with a showcase of the special effects that are only part of the characters’ imagination. Whoever made this decision was not playing fair with their own movie. This is a great family movie that will appeal to both kids and adults. The acting is great, the themes are well-presented, the screenplay is great, and the drama is legitimate. It’s a worthy adaptation to a wonderful book, made into a wonderful movie.

Newer Entries →