Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2
Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Clint Eastwood’s war thriller-drama “American Sniper” grabs you by the shirt and nearly rips it off after holding on for so long. That’s a compliment to how riveting its intense action sequences are. Here, at a time when it seems nearly impossible to shoot action without the use of a tripod, are some well-shot, fully-realized battle scenes that are among the best in any war film I’ve seen. You can see everything fine, it’s exciting, and it captures the essence (and madness) of war really well. What makes it all work better is that, unlike most action films or thrillers you see coming to the big screen here and there, I actually care about who’s involved in the chaos.

The film is loosely based on the life of Iraq War veteran Chris Kyle, who served four tours in Iraq in the 2000s, and it has received a controversy about how much of his story was exaggerated and how much was never mentioned at all (that is described in his autobiography of the same name). Either way, it’s a fascinating film that paints a clear portrait of a man who wishes to serve his country in any way he can and becomes a “legendary” American sniper in country, with 160 confirmed kills, but still try to keep what’s left of his humanity/mental-state intact out of country.

Bradley Cooper stars in arguably his best work to date as Kyle. While watching this film, I forgot I was watching Cooper in a performance and instead saw Chris Kyle. It’s tough to fully describe how shockingly good he is in this role; it has to be seen to be believed.

We follow Kyle on four Iraq tours, as well as times with his family in between. As I said before, the action sequences are outstanding, with one powerful scene after another—my favorites include an important opening kill, a tense, drawn-out rescue attempt against an interrogation that involves a drill, and a shoot-to-kill scenario where the target is about a mile away. But oddly enough, it’s when he’s home that the film is at its weakest. Its theme of trying to cope in the real world, which we’ve seen better in other films, is more standard in the way it’s presented, even though there are some effective tricks Eastwood pulls for us to feel something (the best of which involves a blank TV screen). But even so, I suppose it’s needed. After all, it’s important to care about Kyle and what he has to live for.

Would the film be more compelling if everything they left out from the book was put into the film? Probably, but then again, as I hear, the book is more about patriotism which would have made a more “complete” film more of a propaganda than anything else. But I’m reviewing this film, not the book. As a film, it’s terrific and one I won’t forget anytime soon.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2
Reviewed by Tanner Smith

When you really think about it, that determined quest to be “one of the greats” in whatever field or craft is kind of disturbing, because you have to wonder how far that person going for it is willing to go to prove to be “great?” At what point is the line drawn? This can make for an unnerving story, because any artist is going to feel that kind of pressure and maybe even ponder about whether or not it’s worth it. Damien Chazelle’s “Whiplash” decides to go for it. Here’s a film about the progress of a budding musician executed with the intensity and tightness of a thriller. This easily could’ve been a feel-good story about a mentor pushing his student to the limit and both learning a lesson in a happy ending. But no—this film has a major, upsetting twist on the mentor/student relationship that makes it horrific and yet captivating.

They say with power comes fear, and that’s especially true with Terence Fletcher, played powerfully by the always-reliable character actor J.K. Simmons in probably the best performance of his long career. Fletcher is the orchestra instructor from hell. He runs his band with the intensity of a drill sergeant (hell, he’d probably even make R. Lee Ermey’s “Full Metal Jacket” character piss his pants!), always pushing his students to their full potential so they satisfy not only him but also themselves. But his methods are beyond unorthodox, in that the best ways he can think of to get through to these people is with bullying and sociopathic behavior.

The latest victim of Fletcher’s teachings is Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller, very good), the film’s protagonist. Andrew is a 19-year-old Manhattan music-school student who loves drumming and yearns to be one of the great jazz percussionists. One night, his drumming gets the attention of Mr. Fletcher who overhears him playing. First, Fletcher criticizes him, causing Andrew to first lose hope, and then strive to get better. He does earn a spot in Fletcher’s jazz band, where he learns from Fletcher’s teaching methods head-on.

Due to a teacher’s tough approaches, the student is challenged to understand his full potential in order to achieve his goal of being “great.” Someone once said artistry can redeem any subject matter, and even with old cinematic resources such as this central premise, it’s what is done with the narrative that makes the film what it is. And “Whiplash” doesn’t use predictability or fabricated sentiment or even a true bond between the two characters outside of the practice room (save for one scene later on, but even that’s more a way of challenging wits). It doesn’t even end the way I expect it to; it ends on a note that can be read as either tragic, triumphant, or even both. The bottom line is, “Whiplash” is not an audience-pleaser; writer-director Damien Chazelle is more concerned with telling a cautionary tale and a complex story about obsession and impulse than giving viewers what they want from a story like this. Instead of cheering Andrew on as he becomes a better drummer, we feel pity for him as he beats himself up more and more trying to become “the best,” even when the blisters on his hands bust open and bleed as he practices or even performs live.

What really keeps the film’s audience on edge throughout the film is that anything could set Fletcher off. He could seem like a nice, understanding person to talk to, but all of a sudden, he could turn on a dime and become a sadist who will chew you up and spit you out. You’re always left guessing what he’s thinking and also what it would take to cause him to act this way again. It’s when he acts nice that I get chills while watching this film. And then, at the end, when he reveals something to Andrew and it’s too late to turn back, I was so nervous for this kid that the film had my undivided attention for the remaining final act.

J.K. Simmons deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination come Oscar-time. His Fletcher portrayal is a powerhouse performance; one of the best I’ve seen all year. Any actor who can act in such an effective, unpredictable manner must be recognized. “Amazing” doesn’t begin to cut it when describing Simmons’ work here. He, along with Teller and Chazelle, helps make “Whiplash” a vibrant, riveting film that I won’t forget anytime soon.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Birdman” (subtitled “Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance”) is one of the most ambitious, unique films to come out this year (or any year). It’s a film that shows the mental breakdown of a washed-up actor trying to redeem himself with a comeback through Broadway. It’s a darkly funny, nearly spot-on portrait of theater life that goes into the pains of what goes into a show (with some exaggerations, for laughs) and what it will mean to cast members, both newcomer & veteran, while also taking time out to not only go into the main character’s disturbing inner psyche but also to attack pop-culture sensibilities that continue to ask for everything similar to the modern blockbusters we get every summer (specifically “Transformers”). The result is a black comedy that’s both disturbing to watch and yet fun to watch.

Michael Keaton stars as aging actor Riggan Thomson, who was once famous for playing the star of a superhero franchise called “Birdman” which was a big success. But after refusing to star in a fourth Birdman film, nothing was ever the same, as his life and career went downhill. His attempt at a comeback is to adapt a Raymond Carver short story into a Broadway play. Now in previews for an opening, Thomson writes, directs, and yes, acts in the play. After one of his actors is injured in an accident (which, by the way, results in a hilarious discussion between Thomson and his lawyer/manager/friend Brandon, played effectively against type by Zach Galifianakis), Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) is quickly called in to replace him. Shiner is an undeniably talented actor who brings dedication to his work, but he’s also known for upstaging his directors in a pompous, obnoxious manner.

Also included in the play’s cast are Lesley (Naomi Watts), who is new to Broadway and sees this as her big stage debut, and Laura (Andrea Riseborough), Thomson’s lover who may or may not be pregnant. Thomson’s assistant is his daughter, Sam (Emma Stone), is recently out of rehab and tries to convince her father that the best way to make a comeback is by going viral. As Thomson tries to put everything together while his cast faces their own issues, his fear of failure and continuing a reputation as a “celebrity” rather than an “actor” starts to get to him.

“Birdman” is an effectively disturbing character study, showing us an actor who peaked too soon and is obsessed with reliving the fame while also trying something new with his career. He even hears the growling, grumbling voice of Birdman (sounding very similar to Michael Keaton’s Batman voice) inside his head, telling him to, in a way, become Birdman again. This is a man who let his life choices haunt him later on because he can’t adapt to modern culture and/or he wishes there were a simpler (or better) time when he could make a real impression. Now, he’s so laughable or disrespected that a New York Times theater critic (Lindsay Duncan) pretty much tells Thomson right to his face that she’s going to write a scathing review about the play before she even sees it. This guy lets it practically consume his life.

By the way, that scene where the critic harshly lets it all out to Thomson is a really weak point in the film. That’s because any critic who would slam a work before opening night would lose their job almost immediately!

The cinematography for “Birdman” is unbelievably good. One of the most distinguished qualities of “Birdman” is that, with the exception of an epilogue, looks it was filmed in one long, continuous take. The camera hovers through corridors, goes up and down long flights of stars, even flies from place to place in the city, as Thomson fantasizes himself as Birdman. Emmanuel Lubezki, who shot most of Alfonso Cuaron’s work (and also won a cinematography Oscar for “Gravity”), shot this film, and he does a tremendous job at making the audience feel like they’re inhabiting the same world as the characters. I think only once did I notice the seams in editing, because I was constantly wondering how they managed to make it all seem like one long take. Not even in Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” or the 2012 horror film “Silent House” did I question how this style was done. “Birdman” was also directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, whose previous films include “21 Grams” and “Babel,” and he’s known for making films in an unconventional way. Well, how’s that for unconventional? In a time with fast editing overpowers quality, it’s nice to see something of this style. Even when Thomson fantasizes about being the center of a “modern blockbuster,” with explosions, robots, and all sorts of loud mayhem in the city that mainstream audiences keep asking for (at least, according to the movie), it still manages to keep that style without visible cuts. That can’t have been easy to pull off.

The acting? Excellent! This is Michael Keaton’s big comeback role, if you ask me. He’s perfectly cast and conveys a certain flair to his performance that can’t be copied. He hasn’t been this good in years. Edward Norton deserves Best Supporting Actor consideration for playing a role that pokes fun at Norton’s own reputation while making the character his own. He’s brilliant here; you just can’t take your eyes off him (which is why it’s a little disappointing that he disappears almost entirely from the film in the final act). Solid support includes Zach Galifianakis, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, and also Amy Ryan as Thomson’s ex-wife who still cares for him.

Overall, “Birdman” is a wonderfully-made, well-written, thought-provoking film with brilliant cinematography and acting. It’s a riveting change of pace for those who are tired of the usual stuff people like Michael Bay spews out every year, or hell, every season. But more importantly, it’s one of the best films of the year.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

What’s this? A film based on a young-adult novel about a teen romance that doesn’t feature any supernatural elements, a dystopian future, or even a contrived love-triangle? I must say that’s a huge relief, and we can just see these characters grow together through a harsh reality. And what’s the harsh reality? Dealing with cancer…

Yeah, it’s kind of hard to believe, isn’t it? It almost welcomes the inappropriate phrase, “the young-adult cancer romance.” But I did read the book, written by John Green. It is a good read—melancholy but with realistic issues, strong characterization, and good comedic relief thrown in at just the right times.

When I heard that a film adaptation was going to be made, I thought to myself that it could work if the right actors are cast and the writers are smart enough to know what to leave and what to keep. But I was also nervous about certain scenes I knew were meant to be brought to the screen (in that they were inevitable)—I’ll acknowledge there’s a later part in particular that was sort of uncomfortable to read, and so if it was going to be adapted to film, it had to be very moving or even more uncomfortable. Without giving it away, it involves a “pre-funeral” so that one of the doomed characters will be alive to see it. And I was glad to find that it was handled very delicately and with just the right tone to fit. That statement itself could describe the whole movie.

“The Fault in Our Stars,” the film adaptation directed by Josh Boone and written by Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber, is an effectively moving film. It’s just as successful as the novel and features good actors that bring strong characters to life.

The main character is Hazel Grace Lancaster (Shailene Woodley), a 16-year-old girl who, because of her cancer, uses a portable oxygen tank to breathe. She attends a cancer patients’ support group (mainly to satisfy her mother, played well by Laura Dern), and finds nothing to raise her spirits until she meets a charming teenage boy named Augustus Waters (Ansel Elgort), who attends the group meetings to support his friend Isaac (Nat Wolff) who is about to be blind due to a tumor in one of his eyes (the other eye has already been extracted). Augustus, a former athlete, had his leg amputated and is now seemingly cancer-free. Hazel and Augustus start to hang out together, and they text and flirt with each other as time goes on. Though, at first, it’s hardly a romance; it’s more of a friendship that grows into a romance in due time. A refreshing thing about this story is how much time goes by in this story before their first kiss.

Hazel forces Augustus (or Gus, as he’s sometimes called) to read her favorite novel which she’s obsessed with, mainly because of its ambiguous ending. Midway through the film, Hazel and Augustus make an excursion to Amsterdam to visit the novel’s reclusive author, Peter Van Houten (Willem Dafoe). It’s here that the story grows more interesting, especially to those who haven’t read the book beforehand, because it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen, what truths are going to be revealed, and where it will go from here. When something upsetting is revealed, it happens naturally and it’s well-handled.

That brings us to the dramatic final half of the film which I’ll admit is manipulative and sometimes overly so; it definitely worked for teenage girls in the large audience I saw it with (they were bawling their eyes out and hardly stopped throughout the film’s last 30 minutes or so), but it was hard for me not to feel emotions because I grew to like Hazel and Augustus and I understood just how doomed their romance really was. And they actually talk about this. They keep most of the dialogue from the original book, and it sounds and acts as real people would talk if they were in this situation. Even with something as heavy as someone saying they will die probably long before the other, it’s handled in a gentle way that works well.

But that’s not to say the film as a whole is a downer because there are some good funny moments and light comedy in the screenplay. The lighthearted conversations between Hazel and Augustus are cute; some of their texting conversations (which are shown to us through animated bubbles) are funny; and Nat Wolff, as Isaac, is very good comic relief and thankfully makes some appearances in the dramatic final half after being away for so long until then. I would have liked to see more of this kid.

I love that the characters of Hazel and Augustus are just as fully realized here as they are in the book. They weren’t lost in translation. You see them as real young people with quirks, problems, their own times to be serious, their own times to have fun, and they’re always believable. Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort do terrific jobs at bringing their roles to life, and they exhibit convincing chemistry together.

Now I’ll admit I wasn’t so sure about the film in its first ten minutes. I thought the introduction was a little awkward in explaining Hazel’s illness; I felt the meet-cute between Hazel and Augustus was too awkwardly handled; and there’s a brief backstory shown and told to us about the therapy-group leader, and we never see him again. It’s as if the filmmakers were forced to show diehard fans of the novel that this character was included in the movie. And since we’re talking about problems, I think the editing could used a little more work. I feel a few scenes drag a little longer than they should, and awkwardly at that.

But when I got past all that, I got into “The Fault in Our Stars” and found it to be a well-acted, sweet film with enough humor to keep me entertained and enough melancholy effectiveness to keep me invested. And thankfully, it didn’t need anything else we usually find in young-adult novels to bring more teenagers in.