Archive | 2012 RSS feed for this section

ParaNorman (2012)

22 Jan

ParaNorman-2012-Movie-Image1-600x337

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I could say that “ParaNorman” is quite the unusual family entertainment, and you might think that, just by seeing the trailer and assuming that it’s a family-horror animated film. But a film like that isn’t unusual; it’s just sort of rare, is all (“Coraline,” the stop-motion film from three years ago, is an example—fittingly enough, this film is released by the same studio as that film). “ParaNorman” is actually one of three family-horror animated films released in 2012, followed by “Hotel Transylvania” and “Frankenweenie.” And to be honest, it will be interesting to see those other two measure up against “ParaNorman,” because this is one of my favorite films of the year. It’s fresh and inventive with extraordinary visuals, top-notch animation, and a clever blend of comedy, horror, and even drama.

The story centers around an odd little boy named Norman (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee) who “sees dead people.” Actually, he sees dead people almost everywhere. It’s not only his deceased grandmother, who watches zombie flicks in the living room with him (by the way, I love the zombie film that they watch in the beginning of this film—it’s such a clever sendup to the slow zombie and the dumb, screaming broad). Dead people are everywhere in Norman’s neighborhood—it’s a practical traffic jam of specters on his way to school. People think he’s weird—he’s picked on at school by a beefy bully (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and even his family, especially his father (Jeff Garlin), doesn’t understand him. His only friend is an eccentric, overweight goofball named Neil (Tucker Albrizzi), who is also an outcast.

Norman is haunted by the ghost of his crazy uncle (John Goodman), who shared Norman’s gift. He warns Norman of an impending doom caused by a 300-year-old curse. The dead will raise and an angry spirit will awaken and destroy Norman’s New England hometown, which has historical ties to witchcraft (which they love to exploit). Of course, no one will believe him until things start to get crazy. Once the dead has risen, and zombies are roaming the town, it’s up to Norman and his band of misfits—which include Neil, the bully, Neil’s buff older brother (Casey Affleck), and Norman’s stuck-up older sister (Anna Kendrick)—to figure out a way to put an end to it.

The animation for “ParaNorman” is outstanding. Apparently, the makers of the film have mixed stop-motion figures and sets with CGI effects. The result is a visual treat from beginning to end. In particular, the visuals that stick out are those many ghostly figures that Norman bumps into in an opening scene (some here, some there—when you get the DVD for this film, it’s going to be fun to pause and look in the background); the trees that come alive in one of Norman’s psychic visions (yeah, I bet Sam Raimi wishes he tried this style for his “Evil Dead” movies, huh?); and the climax of the film in which Norman is jumping onto/dangling from pieces of ground that is falling through the earth to keep track of his mission. Everything seems to come alive in this film (which is strange, since the film is mostly obsessed with death).

“ParaNorman” is indeed obsessed with death, and its macabre elements are likely to disturb younger viewers, but delight older ones. (I’m not quite sure how kids are going to handle the scene in which Neil plays with his ghost dog, whom only Norman can see—the dog is split in half). And while the film has its share of comedic moments, it is rather dark and very sad, especially in the final half when we see exactly what caused this curse in the first place. It’s a real heavy issue, without giving too much away, but it’s done very well. I really cared for the story as it developed, and that really surprised me.

But “ParaNorman” isn’t a complete downer. It’s also very entertaining and very funny, especially in the scenes featuring the attacking zombies. Critics have stated that zombies have become more funny than scary (especially since “Zombieland”), and “ParaNorman” knows this. The zombies are slow and somewhat intimidating when they advance in a pack, but they’re also the butt of many jokes. For example, I love the gag in which Norman opens a door to see a growling zombie and as he’s about to approach, Norman quickly closes the door and the zombie’s teeth is stuck through the wood. And when he opens the door to leave, the zombie is hanging there like a door-knocker. That’s funny, but the best gag in the movie involves a race between an approaching zombie and a slowly-dispensing vending machine. And wouldn’t you believe it—instead of the townspeople panicking and running away from the beasts, they decide, “Hey, these things are dumb—let’s kill ‘em!” They get so vicious that the zombies are more scared of the humans, rather than vice versa. That’s brilliant, and it pays off later in the movie with how the townspeople during the Witch Trials long ago were reacting with fear because of something they don’t understand. Indeed, maybe these zombies aren’t the monsters after all—the always-reliable allegory of human nature is present here.

“ParaNorman” completely won me over with its ambition. I love how this film took chances in its story—giving us details about certain characters (especially that evil witch that haunts the sky in the final half), giving us great gags with these macabre elements, and blending in some legitimate drama that you’re surprised the filmmakers had the guts (or brains, so to speak) to deliver. Add all of that to captivating animated visuals and you have a film that is flowing with life, even though it features the walking dead.

End of Watch (2012)

22 Jan

end_of_watch_2012_640x360_913709

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

There is one unfortunate problem with the police drama “End of Watch” that sometimes makes it hard to handle; not just because some audience members couldn’t seem to bear it, but also because it’s an overused gimmick that does not work in the film’s favor. But first, let it be said that aside from said-problem, “End of Watch” is a gripping, insightful and effective tale about L.A. street cops who risk their lives with such importance of their mission.

Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena star as Brian Taylor and Mike Zavala, a pair of South Central cops. Paying acknowledgement to everything that “End of Watch” does right (before getting to that important thing later), Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver excellent performances. They’re two ordinary guys who have a strong bond with each other, and the chemistry is existent and natural throughout the film.

Taylor and Zavala’s night-shift job is nothing new for them—responding to disturbance-of-peace calls, rescuing children from house fires, etc. But their beat is mostly full of drugs and gangs, so there’s always that feeling of wanting to look behind you at every step. And surely enough, because they take their job seriously, Taylor and Zavala are watched upon by a Mexican druglord who wants them stopped (meaning “killed”) before they can delay his plans.

While all that’s going on, “End of Watch” progresses with the lives of Taylor and Zavala. This is the best thing about “End of Watch”—it takes the time to develop the central characters outside of their police cars. While the film has the usual ride-along, crime-spree elements (with daring heroics and “that-was-close” moments), it also goes into the lives of these two cops as they connect to each other, banter with other officers, and spend time with their women (Zavala’s wife Gabby, played by Natalie Martinez; Taylor’s girlfriend Janet, played by Anna Kendrick). These sequences are handled with credibility and effectiveness. They’re needed to make the audience care for the lives of Taylor and Zavala when things get nasty on the beat.

“End of Watch” also takes the audience on what feels like an authentic ride-along in its sequences where Taylor and Zavala constantly come across one major situation after another. The action scenes that follow are realistically gruesome and impactful, and it mostly rings so true that you would think you were watching a documentary on the subject…and this would be as good a spot to bring up the key problem with the movie. Taylor, along with other officers (and even some of the gang members), constantly film everything happening around them with handheld digital cameras. This means that the filmmaking technique of constantly-shaking-the-camera-so-the-scene-feels-even-more-intense is evident for the most part of the film. Why does this not work? Well, number one—this gimmick doesn’t work anymore; it’s awkward and overdone. Number two—because a lot of the action scenes consist of the camera shaking, it’s difficult to see some of the action, which is not supposed to be the case of an action film (action films exist to show the action). Number three—what is the point of when the film finally does move to the third-person perspective, the camera still continues to shake violently? It’s distracting, as well as dizzying, and because writer-director David Ayer is already a proven talent, it’s not needed.

Despite that, however, “End of Watch” is recommended because of its riveting elements that make similarly-themed movies look like nursery rhymes. Thanks to solid acting, convincing human drama, a good deal of plausibility, and hard-edged action violence, “End of Watch” works effectively.

NOTE (two years later): After seeing this a third time, two years since I originally wrote this review, I kind of got used to the shaky-cam. It’s like an episode of “Cops” with the double the authenticity. So there you go–I changed the Verdict rating from a 3 to a 3.5 with that in mind, because the film overall is too strong for a 3. (Also, two years later, just a random statement, but I love this line from Michael Pena: “Policing is all about comfortable footwear.”)

Newer Entries →