Smith's Verdict

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my countdown of my top 20 favorite films of the decade, here’s a recap: 20) Mad Max: Fury Road, 19) Fruitvale Station, 18) Hugo, 17) Parasite, 16) Spotlight, 15) Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, 14) Midnight Special, 13) Take Shelter, 12) The Spectacular Now, 11) The Social Network, 10) Frances Ha, 9) Get Out, 8) Gravity, 7) The Dirties, 6) Boyhood, 5) Whiplash, 4) Inside Out…

3) RUBY SPARKS (2012)

“Quirky, messy women whose problems make them endearing are not real.” That is a line of dialogue from the wonderful magical-realism-based comedy-drama Ruby Sparks that needs to resonate with people who are constantly looking for their “ideal” mate.

“Ruby Sparks” is a film in which a lonely, desperate, hopeless-romantic writer named Calvin (Paul Dano) writes about a manic-pixie-dream-girl type named Ruby Sparks (Zoe Kazan, Dano’s real-life girlfriend and this film’s screenwriter). She’s the woman of his dreams, but she’s also someone who’s only real in his mind, which is something his brother Harry (Chris Messina), who is married and knows the honeymoon phase never lasts, tries to break down for Calvin, who simply won’t listen. But before long, it turns out he doesn’t feel the need to listen, as suddenly Ruby herself is manifested physically into his real life. At first, he thinks he’s gone crazy, until it becomes clear that other people can see her too. (There’s no explanation for why she’s suddenly “real,” and I don’t need one either. There’s only one throwaway line: “It’s love! It’s magic!”) Everything seems perfect for Calvin, until Ruby starts to develop thoughts and feelings of her own, which scares Calvin into thinking she’ll leave him. He realizes he can alter her personality and tries to change her to his liking…and by doing so, he also realizes that what he wants simply is not real and will never be.

I used to like “Ruby Sparks” just as an inventive, endearing comedy-drama, with some fantasy and romance and something to say about relationships. But it wasn’t until I was a few months into my relationship with my girlfriend (who is now my fiancee after five years) that I really started to appreciate it. I saw it a few times (and reviewed it) about a year before the relationship started. Then soon after that, I revisited the film and it had a strange effect on me. I found myself considering the main character (a writer named Calvin, played by Paul Dano) and the film’s theme of reality vs fantasy, and then I started analyzing my relationship with my girlfriend (Kelly) and what it meant to me.

I felt like Calvin at some point in my life—desperate for a relationship with a wonderful woman and having a clear idea of the kind of person I wanted her to be, failing to realize that the person I’m after isn’t a real person at all. It’s just an idea of who I thought I deserved in my life. In the film, Calvin learns this the hard way, and the line of dialogue that really cements it for him (and for us as an audience) is delivered by his ex: “The only one you wanted to be in a relationship with was you.”

It took me quite a while to learn it too and get what the film was really trying to say. There are times when my introverted nature gets the better of me, but when Kelly wants me to interact and be more sociable at a party or something, I’ll at least make an effort (something Calvin hardly attempts) even if it doesn’t always work out. There are times when I notice our differences as well as (or sometimes more than) our similarities, but I don’t try to change her to my exact liking. And if there’s a problem, we talk about it. We try to find a solution and we usually do. And we’ve been together for five years now. (And we’re engaged!)

So, it’s like personal experience blended with the messages of this 2012 indie film and influenced me to be the best I can be in a long-lasting relationship, and I didn’t even know it until I revisited the film whilst still in the beginning stages of my relationship. Since then, it’s become one of my all-time favorite films (#15 on my Top 100 Favorite Movies list), period.

By Tanner Smith

Well, before director Josh Trank’s name became a punchline thanks to the messy blockbuster “Fantastic Four” (or “Fant4stic,” as people like to call it), he had a sleeper hit with the 2012 found-footage superhero teen film “Chronicle.”

Honestly, I feel bad for the guy for what happened with “Fant4stic.” He probably could’ve had something special if not for the studio interference. (Again, the studio system strikes.) Let’s see if he’s doing anything else.

*quick Google search*

Oh OK, he’s doing an Al Capone film with Tom Hardy, called “Fonzo.” Sounds good. Wonder when that’s coming out.

But back to “Chronicle.” “Chronicle” is a film about three high-school students–Andrew (Dane DeHaan), Matt (Alex Russell), and Steve (Michael B. Jordan)–who come across some sort of otherworldly portal that leads them to a force that gives them superpowers. They have telekinesis, they can fly, and they’re stronger the more they use their abilities (“like a muscle”). Because it’s a found-footage movie (though from the perspective of different cameras to tell the whole story), they document it all–the kid holding the camera for the most part (Andrew) even operates it without touching it (meaning there’s very little shaky cam here!). But Andrew, who comes from a broken home and is constantly bullied in school, starts to feel dangerous urges with his new strength and uses them to get back at people who do him wrong.

The first half of “Chronicle” is lots of fun to watch over and over. The kids are played as real kids, they work off each other brilliantly, and they behave the way I think real kids would behave if they suddenly gained superpowers. (Although, wouldn’t it be more interesting if they showed it to their classmates? I digress.) The effects are nicely done, especially for the low budget. (The flying sequences are a little dated, but they’re not terribly done.) And I love seeing them experiment with their abilities–pranking people, flying around, catching a baseball mid-air through mind powers, and even the damage they can cause if they’re not careful…which brings me to the second act, which is very dark and grisly. Much of it has to do with Andrew’s loss of control, which if you go back and watch the film again is inevitable rather than sudden. It bothered me when I first saw “Chronicle”–it doesn’t anymore.

What I like best about “Chronicle” overall is that it tells the full story. It doesn’t set up for a sequel. There’s an obvious beginning, middle, and end, with all the right buildups and just about every right payoff, and it’s told very satisfyingly.

With that said, I do wonder what Matt found when he set off on his quest to find out what happened to him and his friends–what was that thing down there in the tunnel? Where did it come from? But on the other hand, maybe it’s best to keep wondering. I like “Chronicle” just the way it is.

By Tanner Smith

If you’ve followed my Looking Back on 2010s Films series (and it’s OK if you haven’t–I’m mostly doing this because it’s fun, not to gain a large fanbase or anything), you may have noticed I tend to mock the Oscars (mostly in favor of the Indie Spirits). But maybe that’s not fair. The Oscars aren’t the only game in town and when you get down to it, it’s still another group of people who have their own collected opinion about movies they think deserve higher recognition.

With that said, are there any Best Picture Oscar winners on my decade-end top 20?

Well…there’s one. (And there are also two Best Animated Feature winners as well.)

BUT I still would like to write some others for this series, such as “The King’s Speech,” “Birdman,” “Moonlight,” and “Green Book.” And “Argo.”

(And I’ve already written about “The Artist.” That film came SO close to making the list.)

Ben Affleck’s “Argo” is one of the more entertaining thrillers of the decade. It’s thrilling, intriguing, frightening, tense as hell, and overall very interesting to watch. And even though I liked another Best Picture nominee of that year, “Life of Pi,” a little better for different reasons, I still cheered when “Argo” took home the gold. (And “Life of Pi”‘s Ang Lee took home the award for Best Director–not that Affleck was nominated, anyway. Oh yeah, I still remember the controversy about that!)

As time went on, I’ve seen “Argo” more times than “Life of Pi,” so I guess that says something about being careful which film you personally declare “the best” at the time, but how do you know at first?

“Argo” is based on “declassified” true events–a story that was kept a secret for decades: the “Canadian Caper.” US CIA agent Tony Mendez rescued six US diplomats from Tehran, Iran during the Iran hostage crisis, by having them pose as a filmmaking crew who were in Iran for a location scouting. It was a plan so crazy that it actually worked, but not without some suspense along the way. Affleck has already established himself as an accomplished director with gripping thrillers such as “Gone Baby Gone” and “The Town,” and so he was up to the challenge to make this into a film (and he also stars in the film as Tony Mendez).

But of course with such praise from critics and audiences came the inevitable backlash–films that are based on true events always have people coming out about facts that differentiate from fiction. In the film’s climax, it shows higher stakes for the six diplomats than what was probably set up in the real-life situation of escaping from the country. And former President Jimmy Carter, who still liked the film, criticized the Canadian embassy’s minimal involvement in the film, where in actuality, the whole plan was mostly their idea.

Well…OK, fair enough. The main hero for “Argo” could’ve been Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor rather than US CIA agent Tony Mendez. But…eh, let me enjoy what I have. What I have is really damn good already.

It feels like a ’70s political thriller. Everything looks and feels right. The hairstyles. The technology (right down to the box TV sets). Even the vintage Warner Bros. logo that starts the film. And plus, ’70s political thrillers exaggerated a lot of tense situations based on true events as well–“Argo” is just playing by “movie rules.”

It’s also very funny, with Alan Arkin and John Goodman as a movie producer and makeup artist who help Mendez with the ruse of a sci-fi film in pre-production that needs enough exposure make it realistic. Their interaction with Affleck, the dialogue they deliver about what it means to make it in the business, the contrast between what they stand for–all of that is well-done here. Plus, old-school Hollywood always fascinated me, and that’s why these are my favorite scenes in the movie.

Though, I’m sure if the “Argo” film project they talk about was made into an actual film, I’m 75% certain it would have been pretty bad, even for “a $20 million Star Wars rip off.”

What else can I say but…”Argo f**k yourself!”

By Tanner Smith

“ParaNorman” is a fun, well-animated Halloween horror-adventure film…but it’s actually more than that.

It’s another creepy stop-motion animated film, though I wouldn’t confuse it with “Coraline” or “The Nightmare Before Christmas” (both good in their own ways). The plot involves Norman (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee) as an odd outcast kid who sees ghosts. One of the ghosts warns him of a witch’s curse that haunts his small hometown. The deceased are brought back as zombies, and Norman, along with four peers, have to race to put them back to rest before the witch returns and destroys everything and everyone in town.

By Tanner Smith

Continuing my series of Looking Back at 2010s Films, “Sinister” is a horror film that features the best kind of jump-scare and the worst kind of jump-scare.

The former occurs when the main character Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) watches one of the sinister snuff films, which features a lawnmower…and suddenly someone is in the lawnmower’s path!

The latter just seems like a lame studio note–the monster, the Bughuul deity, suddenly appears on-screen for one last scare for no good reason other than…Blumhouse Productions wanted one last scare.

(This is not the only time Blumhouse has given us movie endings with cheap jump-scares. They just kept doing it for a while. I think they’ve learned by now not to do it anymore. I mean, would their later films like “Split,” “Get Out,” or ‘The Gift” be any more effective if they all concluded with someone jumping on-screen and shouting “boo”?)

The reason the lawnmower jump-scare worked was because it actually was a legitimate scare. It had appropriate buildup and a scary payoff. It didn’t fake out the audience with a lame joke in which it turned out to be a random noise caused by a friend or a pet or something. (Like a lot of people, I HATE those fakeouts.)

I really like “Sinister.” I like the mystery, I like the looming doom that surrounds the characters, I like Ethan Hawke, and I especially like that it’s co-written by a film critic (C. Robert Cargill of spill.com), someone who respects film audiences.

But there’s one other thing I like about the film, and I cannot believe I neglected to mention him in my original review years ago. My favorite character in the film is Deputy So-And-So, played by James Ransome (who recently starred as Eddie in “It: Chapter Two”). He’s the sheriff’s deputy who helps Hawke’s investigative crime-author character figure just what is going on with these snuff films and this Bughuul figure. He could’ve easily been written as dumb and naive, for comic relief. Instead, while he is starstruck by the author and eager to help him any way he can, he’s very bright, and he even manages to figure out the hidden truths before the author is able to. I don’t think he gets enough credit, even from the author himself who even lists him in his smartphone contacts as “Deputy So-And-So.”

I did see the critically-panned “Sinister 2,” which brings back Deputy So-And-So (no, seriously–he’s the lead character this time, and he’s STILL credited as So-And-So), the only recurring character aside from Bughuul. Unsurprisingly, it disappointed. Maybe I don’t need a sequel. I have “Sinister,” and that’s good enough for me…except for that final jump-scare. (Seriously, f*** off.)