Archive | 2015 RSS feed for this section

The Gallows (2015)

20 Jan

Horror-2015-The-Gallows-Movie

Smith’s Verdict: *

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I remember writing my “Unfriended” review like it was yesterday. It began with somewhat of a PSA about characterization. Let’s review: “If you’re going to make a teen slasher film without well-developed or even likable main characters, you have to have A) good commentary with an underlying theme & message, B) a clever gimmick, or C) both.” There are two types of horror-movie victims: people who make poor decisions and get severely punished for it, and one-dimensional pawns in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse who we do not care about when they die. “Unfriended” worked because while the characters could be seen as the latter for some, they were seen as the former by others who knew they were dumb teenagers—it was the film’s way of showing consequences while partaking in supernatural horror.

And now we have “The Gallows,” which has a lead character so detestable and unlikable and obnoxious that you’ll be wishing for the company of the jackass who got killed by a blender in “Unfriended.”

His name is Ryan (played by Ryan Shoos). He mocks everything and everyone he sees. He throws footballs at unpopular kids. He’s idiotic. He has no personality outside of hurtful comments. He’s the kind of stereotypical jock you usually find as a one-dimensional bully in high-school dramas, except here, he’s our hero. Good thing he’s in a horror film where he’ll surely die; at least when that happens, he’ll shut up.

Oh, and he films everything too. That’s right—“The Gallows” is another found-footage horror film in which characters record everything on their pocket cameras or their cellphones, including their imminent demises. They’re films that cost very little to make and are very profitable upon release. Some are good; others are…well, like “The Gallows,” pretty bad. Like the bad ones, there’s hardly an excuse for our characters to constantly film everything, and when there is, it’s usually nonsensical and lame. And even when they’re running for their lives, they’re still filming, causing a lot of shaky-cam that is never fun to look at. Oh, and there are also loud, sudden sound effects that couldn’t have been captured on camera, unless they knew they were making a movie and wanted to jump-scare audiences who think loud noises are scary

The film begins with home-video footage showing opening night of a high-school play called “The Gallows,” a “Crucible”-like morality tale, in a Nebraska high school in 1993. A prop malfunctions and a student is accidentally hanged. Cut to 2013, when the drama department has agreed to put the play back on. (Yeah I know, just go with it.) The actor playing the boy to be hanged is a star football player named Reese (Reese Mishler), who has a crush on his co-star, the devoted theatre student, Pfeifer (Pfeifer Brown). Of course, his “friend” Ryan is unsympathetic and a complete jerk and tries everything to make him leave the play while also humiliate him in the process. He comes up with a plan for him and Reese to sneak into the school at night and trash the set so the play will be called off. They bring a cheerleader, Cassidy (Cassidy Erin Gifford), in on it, but soon, they, along with Pfeifer (who happens to come across them in the school), find themselves locked in as they begin to suspect that they’re not alone…

Even with an admittedly shocking reveal about one of the four characters in peril, there’s nothing particularly interesting about our bland leads. Even when it seems they’re about to take a promising turn in a possible relationship between Reese and Pfeifer, it’s cast aside to make room for more antics involving the scumbag known as Ryan and more screaming and yelling from everyone else (again, while they film everything—while we’re on the subject, there is no reason for this film to be shot in this style).

Is anything fresh about “The Gallows?” Yes, the location. Setting a horror film inside a school for the most part is an intriguing idea. It shows how a place can seem peaceful and cheery during the day and seem ominous and creepy at night. (Not to mention, it also saves money on a production designer, because the place is decorated already.)

It all comes back to Ryan. There’s a fine line between “funny” and “insulting” when it comes to creating characters that are kind of jerks, and they have to be kept in that gray area for us as an audience to care for them something even remotely bad happens to them. This is the kind of teenage douche bag that I hated in high school—not the best characterization for your horror movie lead! On top of that, the writing is awful, the terror is only mildly effective, and the found-footage gimmick doesn’t provide the slightest bit of tension, so I’m saying skip this movie like whatever school board should’ve skipped the decision to bring back a play that a child died while performing.

The Visit (2015)

19 Jan

the-visit-03

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

M. Night Shyamalan is a talented filmmaker who has made his mark with “The Sixth Sense” and followed it up with hits such as “Unbreakable” and “Signs.” But after “The Village,” which has split audiences right down the middle in terms of opinion, he has taken many bad spills in his career, resulting in him being the punchline of many movie-related jokes. (These spills are titles such as “Lady in the Water,” “The Happening,” “The Last Airbender,” and “After Earth.”) He was in desperate need for a comeback—if not a home run, then a solid base hit at least. Thankfully, he accomplished a double-base hit with “The Visit,” his best film in at least ten years.

What made his bad films bad? For one thing, they were so damn self-serious. He successfully made it work in his heyday, but after that, he turned in some pretentious, forced filmmaking elements that made his last few films insufferable. That’s why it’s such a relief to actually laugh at the very entertaining “The Visit” because I’m actually supposed to. It is a horror film and it is unnervingly chilling, but at the same time, it’s very funny. I haven’t seen a film work with that kind of balance before, and I applaud Shyamalan for not taking himself too seriously like he did before.

I’m getting ahead of myself. The story: Becca (Olivia DeJonge) and Tyler (Ed Oxenbould) are suburban teenage siblings visiting their grandparents, who haven’t spoken with their daughter, the kids’ mother (Kathryn Hahn), in decades. Becca is an aspiring filmmaker and decides to make a documentary about the visit, these people, and the effect their rejection had on her mother. The kids like their grandparents, Nana (Deanna Dunagan) and Pop Pop (Peter McRobbie)—they seem nice, they’re funny, they seem like grandparents you find in a storybook. But soon enough, they start to notice something isn’t quite right here. Pop Pop keeps going out to the barn by himself. Nana asks Becca to climb all the way into the oven to clean it. The kids hear ominous sounds coming from outside their bedroom at night. And so on. (One of the few problems I have with this movie is whenever the kids tell their mother how “weird” their grandparents are being, she uses the excuse: “they’re just old.” Right.)

As is typical of a Shyamalan film, there is a twist that is revealed late in the proceedings—what IS the deal with these kids’ grandparents? I was watching this movie like a hawk, looking for clues and hints that could lead to what the twist could probably be. Imagine how surprised I was when I didn’t guess it correctly. I’ll be honest—I was so shocked, I felt the world expand around me as the reveal became clear. Then I facepalmed myself for not seeing it coming. (Watching the film again, knowing the twist, actually made the film even more entertaining, which is a huge plus.)

The film is very good at balancing horror and comedy. For example, early in the film, there’s a chilling scene in which Nana chases the kids in a crawlspace under the house, but it turns out she was just playing a game. Moments like this keep the audience guessing, glued to their seats, and wanting to know what’s going on, and it leads to a most entertaining final act; the less I say about that, the better.

The film is shot in found-footage style. Since the film is supposed to be put together like Becca’s documentary, we see everything through the perspective of her camera. This was probably Shyamalan’s biggest risk to take, since this style is wearing out its welcome (though, that’s what people said three years ago and yet films like this are still being made). But he managed to inject some energy into this approach, making executional flaws excusable. (Among the flaws: the video and sound are TOO good for a kid making a documentary, so it’s a little hard to get a natural feeling from the entire film.)

Dunagan and McRobbie are a hoot as Nana and Pop Pop, playing the roles with exaggerated delight. DeJonge is fine as a budding filmmaker who can be pretentious at times, explaining things to her brother like “mise en scene” and “the elixir” and so on. Oxenbould is a riot as Tyler. I forgot to mention this kid wants to be a rapper and often replaces swear words with pop-artist names (for example: “Sarah McLachlan!”)—he raps a few times in the film. Oh and he’s a germophobe…and I won’t even begin to mention how that quirk comes into play later in the film.

Shyamalan hasn’t made the film totally natural. (I already nitpicked the technical aspect, and while I’m at it, sometimes the dialogue and deliveries aren’t entirely convincing.) But he has learned to lighten up with his craft. In doing so, he redeemed himself, making his remaining fans (such as me) wonder what he’ll come up with next. “The Visit” is a lot of fun, even if it isn’t a complete success.

The Big Short (2015)

13 Jan

thebigshortimage2

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

So the housing bubble of the 2000s grew so big that it eventually (and inevitably) exploded in a major way. That would be funny if it wasn’t true. But as impossible it may seem, it really happened, leading to the 2008 global financial crisis. It was chronicled in Michael Lewis’ nonfiction book, “The Big Short,” which was written with the intention of making readers really want to know more about financing—credit-default swaps, collateral debt obligations, etc. I imagine it’d be a difficult challenge to put that same intention into a film adaptation, but not only is Adam McKay’s 2015 film of the same name informative about the situation(s) at hand; it’s also surprisingly funny and entertaining.

Many are surprised that Adam McKay, whose previous films include such dopey mainstream comedies as “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights,” was able to handle this kind of material well. It wasn’t much of a surprise to me, because whether you like these movies or not, it’s difficult to deny that underneath all the goofiness is sheer craftsmanship and social commentary. For “The Big Short,” the comedic aspects are more in the “snarky” category than the “goofy” category (because most Wall Street people are jackasses, by popular opinion)—the serious, heavier material is still treated sincerely and the comedic edge eases it up and gives the film greater significance, causing it to stand out further. This also gave McKay an opportunity to stretch himself further as a talented filmmaker (which he’s already proven with the well-executed racetrack sequences in “Talladega Nights”); an opportunity he relishes in. He pulls out all the tricks to make this film stand out. He shoots it like a documentary; some shots are intentionally bad, to make the acting and writing stand out in a natural way. Characters often break the fourth wall to let us know what they’re thinking. And there are random show-stoppers, used for informative effect. For example, when the audience might be confused about mortgage-backed securities, suddenly, there’s Margot Robbie in a bubble bath to explain everything! (Though, I doubt most men in the audience are paying attention to what she’s saying, if you know what I mean.)

(Other celebrity appearances include celebrity chef Anthony Bordain using a fish stew equivalence and Selena Gomez playing poker with a doctor.)

The film focuses on five of the characters picked from the original source material. Michael Burry (Christian Bale) is a socially awkward genius with a glass eye and a tendency to work while barefoot and listening to rock music. He’s the first one to notice warning signs of the way Wall Street is overvaluing mortgage-backed bonds, three years before the crash, but no one will listen to him. However, he does see this as an investment opportunity by betting that the housing market will fall. Jackass investor Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) decides to do the same and runs it by Mark Baum (Steve Carell), a cynical broker, who reluctantly agrees. While all that’s going on, there are also a couple of amateur traders, Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), who are at the right place at the right time and take the opportunity as well. They get help from ex-broker Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), who decides to guide them through the madness they’re in for. How often do you see a film in which the heroes are betting over a billion dollars against the American economy, especially since if they’re right, it means very bad times for millions of people who are already in danger of losing their homes? What a tricky subject to focus on. Good thing it works.

And it’s funny. The breaking of the fourth wall leads to fulfilled comedic possibilities, the celebrity cameos are hilarious, the dialogue is sharp and witty, and the humor comes from just how smarmy these people can become. Comedy can help elevate a story like this, which can otherwise be an uninteresting drama or a passable thriller, but what also helps is accuracy, which as far as I can tell (being someone mostly ignorant of financing), it definitely has a large amount of. With sharp filmmaking, great acting (what else do you expect from Christian Bale?), a detailed script, effective hilarity, and a unique amount of precision, who would’ve thought a film about the 2008 global financial crisis would be this deep-cutting and this amusing both at the same time?

Room (2015)

8 Jan

Room-Brie-Larson-Jacob-Tremblay

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

DISCLAIMER: If you haven’t seen this film’s trailer, this review can contain a spoiler or two.

Not many films that are centered on a traumatic experience tend to focus on the aftermath. What do the characters who went through this go through when they return to the real world? How easy can it be just to get back to a normal life? Who’s welcoming them back and who breaks away? Lenny Abrahamson’s “Room,” adapted from the novel of the same name by its author, Emma Donoghue, would be a powerful film by itself if it just focused on the experience. But that’s only the first hour, and the film nearly elevates itself to “masterpiece” levels by focusing the remaining hour of running time on the after-effects. (This isn’t necessarily a spoiler. Those who have seen the trailer know that the imprisoned characters in “Room” are free by the halfway point.)

“Room” is what 5-year-old Jack (played by Jacob Tremblay) calls his world; the world he and his “Ma” (Brie Larson) have lived in his entire life; a world of one room, with a few pieces of furniture, electricity, plumbing, a TV, and a skylight in the ceiling; a world outside of which Jack has never set foot. You see, Jack’s mother was abducted a young age and kept in the garden shed in the backyard of her captor’s (Sean Bridgers) house. He raped her repeatedly and kept her locked up, and she gave birth to a boy, who he allowed for her to keep and raise by herself. She’s told him many lies about their “world,” shielding him from the truth, like an elaborate fairy tale. But now that Jack is 5, she can’t keep hiding things from him anymore and she sees that there’s a world out there that he needs to know about.

Eventually, Ma does convince Jack that there’s something more to what he’s been taught, and she gets him to help put her escape plan to action. It involves him playing dead so he can be removed from “Room” and run for help. The plan ends up working, Ma is rescued, and she and Jack are free at last.

End of movie? No. It was just the first act of “Room,” the film, and it leads to a brilliant second act, in which Ma and Jack have to deal with normality. And it’s not quite as optimistic as one may think. Yes, they’re free from their captor, but what happens next? Everything now feels strange and kind of unnerving.

The first hour of “Room” is excellent. It’s kept entirely in this room. The sense of claustrophobia can’t be ignored, as it makes for a really tense atmosphere. You get a good feel of how these people have lived for so long in a world they didn’t make (literally and figuratively), and it really helps that the whole long sequence is seen through Jack’s perspective—you hear his narrations (which sound like whimsical Dr. Seuss phrasings), see the world practically through his eyes, and only leave “Room,” the actual room, when he’s brought out. Also, the scene in which he has to escape is the most suspenseful scene in the entire film; even when you know he’s going to break free, it takes its time getting to that point, stretching out the anxiety.

The second hour of this two-hour film is surprisingly even more fascinating, as we’re brought into “the real world” with these two people. Ma (whose legal name is Joy) is reunited with her parents (Joan Allen and William H. Macy), who have divorced since her capture, and Jack is brought in to live with his grandmother and her new boyfriend. But as it turns out, Jack is slowly but surely learning independence and what it truly means to be a kid, while Ma hasn’t gotten over the experience she’s had to deal with in the last seven years. She’s haunted by memories, unsure of her “second chance at life,” and isn’t sure what to do next. See the film in its entirely, with context, and this is all the more compelling. Credit for that goes to director Abrahamson, who is able to balance out the blatant and the subtle, which helps make the complex material come alive even more.

If not for the outstanding acting throughout the film, “Room” wouldn’t have been as successful. In order for us to feel the characters’ plight, the actors have to sell it. Coming into the film, I already had a good feeling about Brie Larson, one of my favorite actresses working today, and boy was I right. This is not only her strongest performance since “Short Term 12” two years ago; as Ma/Joy, this is undoubtedly the best work of her career by far. And not only that, but she’s also able to portray two different versions of the same character—one is Jack’s image of his “Ma” and the other is the mentally tortured & broken woman who tries to deal with life after seven years of captivity. It’s to Larson’s credit that we can fully understand this character even if characteristics of her are not fully seen by Jack or the audience. She’s marvelous in this film. And then there’s little Jacob Tremblay, who plays Jack. With a child this age, I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I knew with a solid director guiding him, he could provide work strong enough for the material. (Actors have to put a lot of trust in their directors, and child actors are no exception.) Thankfully, Tremblay is able to portray Jack as a real, disillusioned little boy who’s also bright, articulate, and able to adjust (though with some difficulty, of course). It’s a performance more natural and credible than most child acting of recent memory. Another strong performance I want to point out is from Joan Allen, as Joy’s mother who just wants her daughter back in her life and is willing to help her through anything in the post-kidnapping phase. It’s her best work in years. And the less I say about William H. Macy’s smaller but heartbreaking role, the better. (I’m already on the border of giving away more spoilers already.)

“Room” can be seen as either an uplifting drama about survival after misfortune, a partial thriller for the first act, or also as a psychological study about adjustment, transition, and effects. Either way, “Room” is a frank, challenging, and powerful film—one of the very best I’ve seen in 2015.

2015 Review

1 Jan

10151537_10100316206882202_966228584_n

2015 Review

by Tanner Smith

It’s that time of year again I usually refer to as “the time I feel like a true critic.” Usually, I try to wait until the middle of January so that I’ve had time to see some of the most critically acclaimed films I have yet to see. But seeing as how it is the end of the movie year I’m highlighting, I don’t see that as fair. So I’m just going to make my “2015 Review” as of now and I probably will review films like “The Big Short,” “The Revenant,” “The Hateful Eight,” “Brooklyn,” “Carol,” and “Sicario” after I’ve seen them. And I will—I know I’ve been slow in my reviews lately. But I’ll change that soon, because there are quite a lot I should really get into. Let me put it this way—six of my top 10 films of 2015 have not been reviewed by me (YET).

Now I’ll start off with my least favorite films of the year. I surprisingly have very few films for this category. I try to save my money for good movies, since I don’t get paid for reviewing films and so I’m not obligated to see some trashy films. I did not see “Fifty Shades of Grey,” “Pixels,” or “Fant4stic,” three of the most critical bombs of the year; maybe I should consider myself lucky. However, I did see…

  • Jupiter Ascending—I disliked this movie when I first saw it. I intensely hated it, the more I thought about it. Hardly anything about it is original, the exposition is ridiculously uninteresting, the sci-fi action/adventure aspects are mostly dull, and the main character is a blank slate with the ridiculous name of “Jupiter Jones.” Do I even need to mention the bees or the dinosaurs? I gave up on even trying to figure out what those were about. That was the worst film I saw this year.

There were three other films I saw this year that I didn’t hate but I didn’t like all that much either. They were:

  • Beyond the Reach—Just a standard chase movie around the desert with Michael Douglas hunting down Jeremy Irvine, and…there’s just not much else to it than that. The one highlight is the funniest line of dialogue I’ve heard all year, delivered by Douglas: “Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice…I KEEEL YOOOOOUUUUU!!!” That moment was worth the price of admission.
  • Furious 7—Okay, so I don’t hate this movie. It is a lot of fun in its own dumb way and I was glad to be taken along for the ride…but only once.
  • Goosebumps—I thought this movie had potential. I won’t pretend the original “Goosebumps” books by R.L. Stine were great, but they were creative enough to keep kids interested in reading and had clever ideas and concepts. I thought this film would take the concepts and bring a satirical edge to it. Sometimes, it did…but other times, it reminded me of just how cheesy the original ‘90s “Goosebumps” TV show was, despite higher production value.

Before I get into my favorite films of the year, I want to give special mentions to the best made-in-Arkansas short films I saw at 2015’s Little Rock Film Festival (which sadly turned out to be the last year for it, though it won’t be forgotten and hopefully a good alternative will come around for this upcoming year).

These are my Top 5 LRFF2015 Arkansas Shorts (in alphabetical order):

  • The Dealer’s Tale—This 15-minute modern retelling of Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Pardoner’s Tale” is a riveting short film that had me engrossed from beginning to end. It’s very well-made, well-acted, and gloriously-shot. I look forward to Justin Nickels’ next project and I hope it also stars Jason Thompson and Jason Willey together again.
  • Perfect Machine—What a beautiful short this is! This futuristic fable about “what is,” “what was,” and “what can be again” is enthralling, stunning, well-made, and intelligent. A lot of effort was put into this 20-minute film; it paid off wonderfully.
  • Stranger Than Paradise—Can a truly great, thought-provoking, skillfully crafted minute-long short be created with less than 20 minutes of camera battery power? With this film in mind, I say it’s possible!
  • Undefeated—I was only able to see this documentary on boxer Terrence “Tank” Dumas once at the festival; I’m still eagerly awaiting the time when I can see it again.
  • The Whisperers—This chilling 20-minute horror film (which won the Best Arkansas Film award at the festival) was said to be homage to certain family-horror TV shows of the 1990s (like “Goosebumps” and “Are You Afraid of the Dark?”). The main difference between this and them? This is actually scary. The short film’s epilogue makes it even more chilling.

Honorable Mentions (to the Special Mentions): The Ask, Hush, I Hate Alphaman, Little Brother, Monotony Broken, The PaperBoy, The Pop N’ Lock, Pyro, Rapture Us, Spoonin’ the Devil, The Tricycle, ‘Twas the Night of the Krampus

My reviews for all of these short films and more can be found in my Shorts category on this blog.

And now I get to my favorite films of 2015.

But first, 11 Honorable Mentions: Amy, When Marnie was There, Ex Machina, Spotlight, Straight Outta Compton, It Follows, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, Predestination, The Stanford Prison Experiment, Steve Jobs, and The Gift

Might as Well Mention These Too: Bridge of Spies, How to Dance in Ohio, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, Mistress America, Unfriended, While We’re Young

Oh, and I Liked These Too: Ant-Man, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Burying the Ex, Clouds of Sils Maria, Dope, Escobar: Paradise Lost, The Final Girls, Focus, I Believe in Unicorns, In the Heart of the Sea, Jurassic World, King Jack, Mr. Holmes, Trainwreck, True Story, Valley Inn, The Visit

And now for my Top 10 Favorite Films of 2015.

10. THE WALK–I don’t know who or what is to blame for this film’s failure at the box-office (the marketing executives or The Martian), but I think Robert Zemeckis’ latest film deserved more attention. It’s a great-looking, effectively-done film about how a daring dreamer walked a tightrope between the Twin Towers in the 1970s. It reminds us that all good things are worth waiting for.

the-walk

9. LOVE & MERCY—Love & Mercy is like two movies woven into one (one showing Paul Dano as The Beach Boys’ Brian Wilson in the rough points of his career and the other showing John Cusack as Wilson 20 years later, still suffering from paranoia), and they’re both very well-done. I don’t think I can listen to a Beach Boys song the same way again.

love-and-mercy5

8. WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS–I skipped over the question of how vampires can appear on camera if they don’t have reflections, because this New Zealand mock-umentary about the vampire lifestyle made me laugh harder and louder than any other comedy this year.

14237845

7. THE MARTIAN—I had a feeling this would be an intriguing survival tale of an astronaut stranded on Mars, but what pleasantly surprised me was the humor, thanks to a witty script by Drew Goddard. With this and the new Star Wars film, maybe now we’re moving toward an era where our sci-fi blockbusters can have characters most of us optimistic wiseasses can actually relate to. Ridley Scott is at his best, Matt Damon and his fellow cast members are at their a-game, and the film is a lot of fun.

The-Martian

6. CREED—This is the sequel to Rocky that I’ve been waiting for, with something old and something new. The performances are strong, the relationships well-developed, the fights expertly handled, and I admire the bold move on writer-director Ryan Coogler’s part to truly go down the road and assume accurately where Rocky Balboa’s life is now compared to where it was back in 1976.

creed

5. THE END OF THE TOUR—I feel like there’s a very slim chance James Ponsoldt’s terrific slice-of-life comedy/drama will get an Adapted Screenplay nod, and that’d be a shame because this features some of the most interesting dialogue I’ve heard all year. In addition to that, the film truly is wonderful—honest, insightful, a great balance of drollness and pathos, and very well-acted.

the-end-of-the-tour

4. MAD MAX: FURY ROAD—Every decade has its new ground-breaking action-adventure flick. There are still four more years to go in the 2010s, so I’ll be interested to see if there’s another such film that’s as riveting, exhilarating, and downright awesome as Mad Max: Fury Road. What a lovely day!

mad-max-fury-road-10

3. TWO STEP—This film made its way into my “Special Mention” category last year, having seen it in the Little Rock Film Festival. Since it had a limited theatrical release this year and is now available on VOD, this tense thriller now qualifies for my year-end list this year. I highly recommend you seek it out and check it out.

twostep2

2. ROOM—This one was in competition with Inside Out for the #1 spot and it lost out in the end by a very slim chance. Room is a very powerful film that is more moving than its horrific backstory would lead someone to believe, thanks to a brilliant second half showing what happens after being brought back to the real world after spending years in imprisonment. Great acting from Brie Larson and a new young talent named Jacob Tremblay help elevate the film’s emotional levels.

Room-Brie-Larson-Jacob-Tremblay

And my favorite film of 2015 is…

1. INSIDE OUT—The best original animated film and one of the most enjoyable, inventive, touching films I’ve seen in a long time. This is Disney-PIXAR’s return to form, delivering something for both children and adults with a genuinely moving story about the importance of our emotions and getting past hardships in life that is also very imaginative, taking advantage of its creative concepts. From the moment I left the theater the first time I saw it, I knew there wouldn’t be a 2015 film I liked better (though there were a few that came very close).

Inside-Out

Not a bad year for movies! Let’s hope 2016 is even better…

 

Mistress America (2015)

16 Dec

Mistress_America

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Following my review of “While We’re Young,” this is yet another 2015 film from Noah Baumbach that left a weird impression on me—from confusion to praise in a matter of time. Baumbach usually writes his characters as ignorant, self-praising, gullible, and disagreeable. That, plus his biting dialogue, can throw moviegoers off, but when they, like me, can get past that in order to see the characters for who they are and what exactly Baumbach is saying with his direction, there is something fascinatingly insightful about much of his films. (And it also helps that he’s lightened up a little since 2010’s “Greenberg,” probably thanks to his collaboration with co-writer/actress Greta Gerwig.) That’s how I came to enjoy “While We’re Young” and that’s how I came to enjoy “Mistress America.”

If “While We’re Young” was Baumbach’s “Woody Allen film,” then “Mistress America” is both his screwball comedy and his “John Hughes film,” complete with lots of sharp dialogue, revelations about characters, intriguing but unusual detail, and even some unnecessary comic relief and a hollow tempo score.

The main character is a college freshman named Tracy (well-played by Elizabeth Olsen lookalike Lola Kirke), who has trouble fitting in at Columbia University. She feels overwhelmed by the college experience, doesn’t have anyone to talk to or connect with, and isn’t sure of exactly what she wants. She has some idea when she signs up for a campus literary magazine and writes a short story for it, but she’s not so sure she’ll get in. She meets a nice intellectual boy (Matthew Shear), but he gets a girlfriend (Jasmine Cephas Jones) soon enough. Then she meets Brooke, who is the daughter of the man Tracy’s mother is going to marry…

Greta Gerwig co-wrote the screenplay with Baumbach after working together on “Frances Ha” and stars as Brooke, a 30-year-old New Yorker who has many ambitions…and will not shut up about them. She talks and talks and talks. She rarely listens to people even when they have something important to say because she’s too busy listening to herself. She wants to be influential and prominent and successful, like most young people aspiring for something great. But also like most young people, she has no clear (or at least realistic) plan to achieve her goals (and for that matter, it’s unclear if she truly has any particular talents anyway). She and Tracy meet due to Tracy’s mother’s insistence and belief that they’ll form a mentor/student relationship. Is she wrong or is she right?

The first few minutes of “Mistress America,” which show Tracy attempting to adjust at college life, are pitch-perfect, showing Baumbach is practically a master at satire, dialogue, and observation. You get the gist of Tracy’s plight by the time the opening credits are done; how often does that happen? It’s funny, observant, and even allows for empathy. As Baumbach showed with “While We’re Young,” his attention to detail is astounding, right down to the cracked screen on Tracy’s cellphone. Then along comes Brooke and the film turns into a madcap comedy, with lots of witty lines, odd attitudinal swings, and eccentricity. Yet the film still keeps a proper amount of authenticity that keeps it intriguing and strangely true.

I can understand why people would be turned off by the character of Brooke. She is constantly babbling about what may or may not happen if/when her dreams come true, and some of her eccentricities (like making up words for herself) are off-putting. A few minutes into getting to know her and you’ll find out pretty quickly whether or not you want to spend another hour with her. (The film itself is pretty short, clocking in at barely an hour and 24 minutes.) As for me, I didn’t have much trouble with her or the way Gerwig portrayed her, but I can see why some critics who panned this film did.

But what’s more interesting is the story with Tracy. She’s the “straight man” to Brooke’s “life force,” but this doesn’t turn out to be as predictable as I expected. There’s a parallel story in which Tracy is taking notes on Brooke’s speech and behavior in order to craft a short story about her (without her knowing it). She believes this story will give herself attention, as she would like to write realistic fiction. What she doesn’t realize is what she knows about Brooke is what she knows from spending only one night with her, and this can be seen as cruelty, especially since it would make Brooke uncomfortable if she reads the final draft. Tracy may know what we have figured out about Brooke, but she has even more to discover about her and about herself as well.

I can’t say the film is entirely realistic. Much of the dialogue can be very stagey, especially when the film takes us to a trip to a house in Connecticut where Brooke hopes to guilt a couple from her past into providing her with funds for a restaurant she’s planning. This whole sequence demonstrates what’s good about the film and what may be flying too close to the sun. (John Hughes, who I referenced in the first paragraph, was guilty of similar problems in his films too.) But there’s enough good in it that it doesn’t damage the film, even with the annoying characters of the deluded boy and his overly jealous girlfriend (who’s so pretentious that even Brooke tells her to stop sounding like an adult) and certain lines of dialogue that I don’t think would be said in real life.

I found “Mistress America” to be a very funny, observant film that shows a definite growth and relaxation in Baumbach’s work, compared to his scathing observations in films such as “Margot at the Wedding” and “Greenberg.” I’m excited to see what he comes up with next.

While We’re Young (2015)

16 Dec

while-were-young.jpg

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I do not know what to make of this film. The first time I saw it, I didn’t know what to make of it but I felt I liked it. The second time, I noticed a couple more little things and liked it less. The third time, I noticed even more I didn’t catch the first two times and I find myself grudgingly giving the film a positive review because…I think Noah Baumbach’s “While We’re Young” is both ingenious and infuriating.

Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts star as a middle-aged husband and wife living in New York. They admit they’re fine living the life of marriage without children and doing things their own way, unlike their friends (a couple played by Maria Dizzia and Adam Horovitz) who have become boring since they started raising their child. Right away, this is an interesting idea that opens a door for character development; but then again, they’re so vocal about their situations that it feels like they’re complaining too much about something they chose for themselves and other things they claim to be focusing on but aren’t putting enough focus into. The couple meets a younger couple, in their mid-20s, played by Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried. They’re lively, opinionated, ambitious and definitely hipsters (though the word “hipster” is never spoken once, unless I missed it). Both couples form an unlikely friendship, and it’s here that Baumbach shows an interesting contrast between generations. The older couple has a lust for life but also many awkward moments, and the younger couple is into so many retro things (they collect records, VHS tapes, board games, etc.) that make the older couple feel even older than they are. There’s so much detail put into this contrast and it’s hard to fault Baumbach for accuracy; I wouldn’t doubt the New York hipster culture is like this.

Perhaps the biggest difference between generations is that today’s (in shape of the younger couple) seems to expect to have everything they want handed to them without having to work so hard to get it all. They’re actively nostalgic but perhaps lazily content with life. Stiller’s character, on the other hand, has worked so hard to get where he wants to be. He’s a documentary filmmaker who has spent years on a project that he’s sure will be a milestone in capturing “life.” (The problem there is that it’s overlong and kind of boring; even he admits that.) His wife, played by Watts, is a producer whose father (Charles Grodin) is a pioneer of the genre whom Stiller aspires to be like. Then Driver’s character, also a documentary filmmaker working on an ambitious project, has this idea for his film that will mostly go places and jump-start his career, even with help from Grodin’s character. And Stiller becomes resentful that this kid is having the success that eluded him.

Maybe that’s what kept throwing me off the first couple times I saw this film. There’s too much to keep track of, whether it’s montage or production design or character or truth. It’s overstuffed… But then again, at the same time, it’s hard to criticize the film for that, especially when you see how much Baumbach was clearly paying attention to everything around him in his own life so he could properly portray it on film. He is trying his hardest to make everything work and most of it does work. In fact, this is why I had to see the film again: to catch something I didn’t catch before. And I’ll be honest—the second time I saw the film, I thought to myself, “Oh…*that’s* what he was going for,” as if he were making a smug commentary on something in particular. Then I really thought about it and realized maybe it wasn’t so smug as much as it was observant. I do recognize this behavior around me and at age 23, who am I to judge what a 45-year-old man sees, since the film is mostly told from the perspective of a 45-year-old man (the Stiller character), when even I don’t know much about everything I see in my own generation?

And this is why I give “While We’re Young” a positive review (maybe not so “begrudging” as I thought)—it kept me thinking. Why am I not giving it a higher rating than three stars then, you may wonder? Well…because of the last act. The last act tries to juggle ethical dilemmas and reveal the nature of “truth” in art and in life, as Stiller tries to use his newfound discoveries about himself and his friends (old and new) to prove his points in a climax. He desperately wants to prove to everybody that he’s right about Driver on numerous levels. Not that some of what he says are true, but the more he tries to prove it, the more pathetic he becomes, especially when it’s considered the age difference between him and Driver.

But then I realize as I write this review…I think I get the irony here—that Stiller has dropped to a point so low that he’s actually making someone half his age a central figure in his universe. He’s supposed to come off as sort of pathetic and he still doesn’t know what he needs to know in life. He’s almost as if he won and even then he won’t give up.

I could criticize the film’s final act for being so broad, but even so, it has its own points to make and knew how to do it. So why the hell am I criticizing it?! I swear, this review sounded a lot better in my head, but actually typing it for this review is making me feel kind of pathetic. “While We’re Young” is a film that puzzles rather than satisfies. What is necessarily wrong with that? Many character studies (especially Woody Allen’s films of the 1970s) have provided commentary and humor by doing exactly what this film is. Baumbach is becoming a powerful voice in the modern-day independent-film scene and getting his points across in a non-commercial way that is sometimes welcome and other times pretentious. In this film’s case especially, the glass is either half-empty or half-full. Yes, I know this review is all over the place, and for me, writing about it helps me express my full opinion of the film. In the end, I can’t deny it—“While We’re Young” is a terrific film and one I’ll probably watch a few more times because I want to understand it more.

NOTE: The Smith’s Verdict rating was originally three stars. I immediately bumped it up to three-and-a-half after finishing this review.

Creed (2015)

6 Dec

creed

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

2015 has had its share of reboots, with the majestic uprising of “Mad Max” and the tragic downward spiral that was “Fan4stic.” Now comes the return of one of the most iconic figures of the 20th century: Rocky Balboa. Originally brought to life by writer-actor Sylvester Stallone in 1976, his first film, “Rocky,” was the “little film that could,” beating the odds with audiences and critics and even going on to achieve the Academy Award for Best Picture. Since then, the film’s sequels have been hit-and-miss, but the truth was the power of the original film could never be matched…until now.

29 years since the original film and nine years since the decent fifth sequel, “Rocky Balboa” (released 16 years after the disastrous “Rocky V”), filmmaker Ryan Coogler (whose previous film was the great 2013 drama “Fruitvale Station”) has brought Rocky back to life in the seventh (and possibly last) entry in the franchise: “Creed.” Only this time, Rocky (Stallone, of course) is not the boxer training for a fight; instead, he’s the trainer for a champion-in-the-making, a 28-year-old boxer named Adonis (Michael B. Jordan), who happens to be the son of Rocky’s late opponent-turned-friend Apollo Creed.

Times have certainly changed since 1976 and we have to see Rocky the way he is now rather than what he used to be. We may always remember him as the underdog who came close to beating one of the world’s greatest boxers, but that’s not who he is anymore. He doesn’t throw a punch in the whole movie. His body is failing him and his loved ones are no more (either dead or moved on in life). He owns a restaurant (called Adrian’s, named after his late wife) to make ends meet and possibly to distract himself away from the sport. Things change when Adonis shows up in his restaurant, looking for him.

Adonis was the product of an affair with Apollo Creed and abandoned by his mother. He’s been in foster homes and juvenile halls until Apollo’s widow, Mary Anne (Phylicia Rashad), takes him in. Over a decade later, Adonis works for a financial firm in Los Angeles while secretly fighting in brutal Tijuana matches on weekends. But despite Mary Anne treating with the proper education and looking out for him, Adonis prefers to fight due to anger and resentment built up inside him. He quits his job and decides to move to Philadelphia to make a name for himself as a professional fighter (and not with the name “Creed,” as to not be cast in his father’s shadow) where he hopes he can find Rocky Balboa and persuade him into training him. It takes a while ton convince him once he introduces himself to Rocky, but soon enough, he does decide to train Adonis for bigger fights with ranked opponents. But when it becomes revealed to the media who Adonis really is, he is forced to face a tougher challenge: prove everyone that he is who he is and not who his father he never even knew was. He and Rocky figure the best way to show that is to train hard and go up against a seemingly indestructible champion: “Pretty” Ricky Conlan (Anthony Bellew), a British brute who wants one last fight before he goes to prison.

Oh, but that’s not all. I know that sounds strange, but “Creed” is actually full of story. It manages to sneak in a sweet romance between Adonis and a pretty neighbor, Bianca (Tessa Thompson), who is a musician about to go deaf; scenes of pathos such as when Rocky confesses how he’s given up on life now that his wife and friends are long gone; and even a subplot involving Rocky’s deteriorating health and whether or not Rocky wants to get treatment for it. All of these elements come together so well, creating a solid tale of life, strength, companionship, and self-respect, with appealing, well-rounded characters and an emotionally involving story. It was a heavy responsibility on Coogler’s part to bring back familiar elements from the previous “Rocky” films while making the film his own at the same time, and he pulls it off successfully. There are also some neat references and in-jokes going back to the other films, as well as a wonderful moment that brings Rocky back on top of the steps at the entrance of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. (There’s even a final answer as to who won Rocky and Apollo’s private third match behind closed doors at the end of “Rocky III.”) Coogler brings a unique style to the franchise that makes it a welcome return to greatness, including an impressive sequence midway through the film that shows a boxing match inside the ring done in one entire take. It’s like Coogler knew we saw the typical “Rocky” formula and visual style, and so he decided to change things up a bit for purposes of tension and proximity.

Michael B. Jordan is one of my favorite actors working today and delivers a terrific performance, handling himself effectively in dramatic scenes as well as in the ring. Stallone, who is often mocked for his one-note depictions, turns in some of his best work here, bringing sincerity and loneliness to the new side of Rocky Balboa.

I truly do believe “Creed” is a great film; the best “Rocky” film since the original. Yes, it’s a boxing movie and we get the feeling who the winner’s going to be in the final round. But like the original film, it’s about so much more than boxing. The performances are strong, the characters are well-developed, the fights are well-staged, the dramatic scenes are handled terrifically with quietness and subtlety, the Rocky/Adonis relationship is engaging, the rousing training montages are suitably cheerful, and I truly admire the bold move on Coogler’s part to truly go down the road and assume accurately where Rocky’s life is now compared to where it was back in 1976. I think it’s safe to say that it’s the sequel to “Rocky” we’ve all been waiting for.

The End of the Tour (2015)

10 Nov

the-end-of-the-tour

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Okay, confession time, guys—before seeing “The End of the Tour,” I had absolutely no knowledge of either David Foster Wallace or his significant novel, Infinite Jest. After watching the fictional film about a few days in his company (which, as far as I can tell, is mostly accurate), I feel like I should read the novel and get into Wallace’s mindset even further.

Directed by James Ponsoldt (whose previous film was “The Spectacular Now,” one of my new personal favorite films), “The End of the Tour” is not a biopic about the life of a troubled artist but a slice-of-life film about a reporter’s interpretation of said-troubled artist while spending five days with him. The result is a comedy-drama that is honest, insightful, a great balance of drollness and pathos, and brilliantly acted. It’s one of the best films of 2015.

The story is told in flashback in 1996, when writer David Lipsky (played by Jesse Eisenberg) is assigned by Rolling Stone to join David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel) on the last few days of his multi-city book tour. He gets to know the offbeat Wallace, keeps his tape recorder handy and running most of the time, and the more he gets to know what kind of person he is, the more hesitant he is to ask him what his editor is demanding to know: was Wallace addicted to heroin?

I’ve always liked Jason Segel in his comedic roles, but with his performance as Wallace, he shows a side I haven’t seen before. He’s brilliant, portraying an artist who is trying to hide from the world while observing modern (or, pre-9/11-modern) society’s pros and cons (at one point, it’s revealed that he himself is addicted to trash TV), and he’s terrified of fame for numerous reasons (some obvious, others understated). There are many levels to Segel’s performance that are fascinating to interpret; to see this film is to admire this performance.

Jesse Eisenberg’s role, who is technically the film’s main character, doesn’t require a stretch in range for the actor who has given similar performances before—as the twitchy, brainy, self-absorbed, quick-witted person who has a heart of gold—but Eisenberg still does an effective job here.

Also to be admired is the screenplay by Donald Margulies, adapted from the real David Lipsky’s reflective novel, Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself. The conversations Lipsky has with Wallace are great and fascinating to listen to, with a great amount of pitch-perfect dialogue. It’s a long shot for the film to get a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination come Oscar-time, but I would cheer if it did.

With a fantastic script, a remarkable performance from Segel, and numerous effective moments that are dramatic, humorous, or both, “The End of the Tour” is a film I won’t forget anytime soon. I see a spot open in my year-end list for the best films of the year. I love this movie.

Ex Machina (2015)

6 Nov

08014398-photo-ex-machina

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

From “2001” to “Blade Runner” to “Her,” artificial intelligence has been a common theme in science-fiction films. I think back to a line in a scene from “Prometheus,” in which an android asks a human he serves why he was made: “We made you because we could.” To say the least, there’s something so enthralling about the ability to play God and create life that the notion of said-life developing a soul is usually glanced over. That notion can pave the way for creative writers to explore its full potential, and with “Ex Machina” writer-director Alex Garland, best known for penning the screenplays for such films as “28 Days Later” and “Never Let Me Go,” explores this idea to create a spellbinding, thought-provoking fable about what it means to be “human.”

The film begins as Caleb (played by Domhnall Gleeson) is chosen to participate in a test conducted by reclusive computer-scientist Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac), who is CEO of the search-engine company Caleb works for. Caleb is brought to Nathan’s remote estate to stay for a week. Why is he there? Because Nathan has created an A.I. prototype named Ava (Alicia Vikander) and he wants Caleb to interact with Ava for seven daily sessions and see if she can pass for a human.

To get this out there right away, the special effects involving Ava are quite outstanding. She’s covered partially in metallic skin with a human-like face, and we can also see through her to see her skeletal structure. It’s really impressive.

Ava is self-aware, speaks in a pleasant, robotic tone not unlike Siri, and seems very real, in Caleb’s eyes. He is astonished by how well she can pass as human and even becomes strangely attracted to her. This gets the attention of Nathan, who sees this as a development in the test, while Caleb starts to get suspicious of Nathan’s intentions toward Ava. Who is in control of this experiment? Who is being controlled? Who is manipulating who? Who is being manipulated?

The less I say about the story of “Ex Machina,” the better. I walked into this film cold and was constantly intrigued by each direction the complicated story took. Yes, the story is a bit complicated but only in terms of the characters and their incentives. It avoids the usual scientific talk about how Nathan created Ava and instead pushes it into symbolic-dialogue territory, with Nathan telling Caleb his reasoning for creating A.I. and what he plans to do with Ava to make way for more improvements. This has Caleb worried, since he sees her to be as human as he, while Nathan sees her as just a machine that can be replaced. Nathan loves to create life, even if he doesn’t see them as “being” or “unique,” so Caleb sees his meanings as problematic.

What I like most about “Ex Machina” is that it’s a little film about grand concepts. It’s kept in this one huge compound with four characters (Caleb, Nathan, Ava, and Nathan’s housekeeper whose identity would be a spoiler to describe) and we stay there for a majority of the film. The set itself is a suitably-unsettling place to spend an hour and 40 minutes of running time, especially at night, when it feels like a prison, with surveillance, key cards, and emergency shutdowns that happen ever so often, strangely. And the film isn’t an action film with a ton of special effects (the effects, which mostly bring Ava to life, have a purpose and are understated); instead, it’s a film about construction, philosophy, value, and character, and it’s the characters and the script’s brilliant dialogue that help bring these themes across in a very effective way. It also helps that Garland builds an edgy, disquieting tone that keeps the audience unnerved and guessing throughout the film.

“Ex Machina” also benefits from strong performances as well. Alicia Vikander provides the strongest performance as Ava, keeping the audience guessing as to whether she’s mimicking human emotions or genuinely feeling them. Oscar Isaac is brilliant as Nathan. He doesn’t play him as a typical mad-scientist type by constantly shouting and spewing exposition; he just plays him as an eccentric, deadpan, alcoholic narcissist who has a brilliant mind but is also kind of insane, especially when it comes to his fascination with playing God. Domhnall Gleeson is fine as the outsider/straight-man who isn’t sure exactly what to believe.

With intriguing concepts, smart dialogue, a low-key approach, a contained feeling, and numerous surprises, “Ex Machina” is not a film I will forget anytime soon. Some of the concepts have been explored before but not quite like this. It is one of the best films of the year.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →