Smith's Verdict

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I wrote in my “Lights Out” review that 2016 was becoming a great year for smart mainstream horror. I also notice it’s been a banner year for confined thrillers—“10 Cloverfield Lane” has a maniac in a basement; “Hush” takes place at one house in which a deaf woman is vulnerable against a psycho (or is she?); the action in “Green Room” mostly takes place in a tight room in the back of a bar; and now, we have “Don’t Breathe,” in which unlucky burglars are trapped in a locked-down house with a blind war vet trained to kill.

“Don’t Breathe” brings a neat twist to the Home-Invasion Thriller. Of course, the particular example I think of is the 1967 thriller, “Wait Until Dark,” in which Audrey Hepburn is a blind woman terrorized by three thieves searching her home for something specific; they underestimate her and she manages to fight back. In this film, however, the thieves are our protagonists. And it’s not sweet Audrey Hepburn’s house they’re burgling—it’s rough-as-sandpaper Stephen Lang. He apparently has a stash of cash hidden somewhere in his house in the middle of a lonely neighborhood. The thieves—three arrogant teenagers (Jane Levy, Dylan Minette, and Daniel Zovatto)—hear about this and figure this will be their last score if they can pull it off. Because Lang is blind, they see this whole idea as an easy task, aside from the pet Rottweiler they have to sedate temporarily.

But in the middle of the gang’s search, the Blind Man (who’s never given a name) awakens after their chloroform bomb fails and knows there are people in his house. That’s when the teens realize they burgled the wrong house and messed with the wrong guy. And from that point, things go really, really wrong…

From that point, the film turns into a tense, chilling thrill ride that grabs you by the throat and doesn’t let go. From the cinematography to the sound design to the “how-the-hell-are-they-gonna-get-outta-this-one” situations (one after the other), “Don’t Breathe” is a nail-biting experience that hardly lets up once it gets started. When Stephen Lang is walking blindly in his house while looking for these kids, I feel like I should be holding my own breath, making sure I’m not heard either. The suspense is palpable throughout many of these sequences, and you wonder, from one scene to the next, how these kids are going to get out of each tight spot they’re stuck in. You really feel these kids’ mutual fear as they realize too late they made a huge mistake in thinking they could rob a blind person who may in fact be a psychopath, and you do root for them to either find a way out of that house without being caught somehow or even to steal the loot. (How often does a film come along in which you forget stealing money from a blind guy is a bad thing? To be fair, we do get early character-establishment scenes that show why these kids, particularly Levy’s character, need the money; so we at least have some understanding why she takes a chance at times.)

When it comes to messages, we see it mostly done in melodramas which most of us would rather not watch because a lot of them are portrayed in a very manipulative way. I feel with horror films, you can get the message out stronger. It can be summed up like this: “If you do this, you’re screwed.” The best way to sum up “Don’t Breathe” is, “Don’t underestimate the blind, because if you do, you’re screwed!”

OK, OK, so the film tries to stretch it out even longer by giving the Blind Man more psychotic tendencies (to say the least—but I won’t spoil anything here), but the point still remains: don’t underestimate the blind.

“Don’t Breathe” is a well-made, well-acted, exciting hell-ride that helps me further my statement that 2016 is a very good year for horror. We have four months left, so let’s wait and see what else we can get.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I must confess, when I started watching Sian Heder’s Netflix Original film “Tallulah,” I had no idea what it was about. I knew it starred Ellen Page and Allison Janney…and that was it. As it was establishing the main character, I was invested. She’s a drifter named Tallulah aka Lu (played by Page) who lives in a van and roams from place to place. Where’s her family? I don’t know. Where was she from? I don’t know. How does she get by? I don’t really know that either. She has a boyfriend in tow, Nico (Evan Jonigkeit), who tires of her lifestyle and ends up abandoning her, causing her to feel more alone (and it’s to Page’s credit as an actress that she can really show that in a scene in which she has very little dialogue). As the film continued for another 15 minutes or so, I was still curious where this person (along with the film) was going. Then it got to the point (which isn’t a spoiler, because it’s more or less the film’s “hook”) in which she snatches a baby from its mother and tries to care for it. That’s when I thought to myself, “Oh no, you’re not really going here, are you?” I worried maybe this was going the clichéd melodramatic path I expect from a premise like this.

Yet, I didn’t turn the film off. I was curious to see where it might be going, just in case it surprised me. And surely enough, it did. “Tallulah” turned to be one of the most moving films I’ve seen in quite a while. Much of that has to do with how this material was handled. It could have easily been bland, overwrought melodrama, but thanks to a carefully fashioned script, its grounded sense of direction, and brilliant performances by Page and Janney, it instead became something special.

The conflict begins as Lu goes to New York City, in search of Nico. All she has to go on is his mother, a divorcee author named Margo (Janney) who has enough problems in her life without a strange young woman asking for help. Lu steals room-service food from a nearby hotel and is mistaken for housekeeping by a young mother named Carolyn (Tammy Blanchard). While tipsy and preparing to go out on a date, she asks Lu to look after her one-year-old daughter Madison. Carolyn comes off to Lu like an irresponsible mess, so Lu, even though she has no experience in caring for children let alone babies, decides to take the gig of babysitting. But when Carolyn returns drunk and passes out, Lu is concerned for Madison’s wellbeing and takes her away with her. Not knowing what to do, Lu takes Madison to Margo’s apartment, claiming the child is Nico’s and is her granddaughter. Margo reluctantly lets them stay for a little while.

From that point starts a bond that gradually forges the more time these people spend together. Lu continues to look after the child while Margo finds Lu is a bit of a handful as well. But Lu and Margo find ways to relate to one another that neither of them would have expected. This is where the film really shines: the development of the relationship between Lu and Margo. Both Page and Janney do extraordinary work and play off each other wonderfully. And this growth is important to the story, because it plays on the theme of motherhood and what it means to truly care for someone. Neither of these two have definite answers to questions of sacrifice and stress, but through each other, maybe they can find them together.

Of course, you know the truth about the child has to be revealed to Margo near the end of the film. While I was dreading that moment, I had hope in how it would play out, given how good everything was turning out so far. But thankfully, even though the moment does come, it’s surprisingly underplayed, allowing the characters to progressively think things through before they can really talk about the issue at hand. Sian Heder, who also penned the script, knows what we’re tired of seeing and has done something with tired material that feels fresh.

And that surprisingly also includes the subplot involving the child’s worrying mother! I was shocked to find how heartbreaking and compelling Carolyn’s story was turning out, given how we started seeing her as a caricature of an irresponsible mother. But you see how she feels throughout this turmoil of missing her baby and how she could’ve prevented something like this from happening eats her up inside. I truly felt for her.

The film isn’t entirely successful, however. A subplot involving the doorman (Felix Solis) of Margo’s apartment building goes nowhere. (Even if his exit from the film was the punchline to a joke…I didn’t get it.) Take that part out of the film, and I don’t think anything would have been missed.

By the end of “Tallulah” comes much warranted and appreciated character development from the title character. She learns what it means to be responsible for someone else after spending so much time looking after herself, and it turns out she may even be a little better looking out for someone else than she has for herself. When the film was over, I felt glad to be in the company of good people who I felt grew through difficult circumstances. “Tallulah” isn’t a film I’ll forget anytime soon.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If you’re in the light, you’re safe. But when the lights are off, you’re doomed. It’s a gimmick, of course; one that can generate some good scares in a horror film. But if that were all “Lights Out” had to offer, the gimmick would probably wear out quickly. Thankfully, while this is a very effective scare-fest with neat ways of showing both how easy and how hard it is to escape the mysterious entity that lurks in the dark, there’s more to the film than just scares. Surprisingly, it has a family-drama story to tell also, and Swedish director David F. Sandberg (making his feature debut based on his popular short film of the same name) does a good balancing out the family dilemmas and the supernatural terror.

“Lights Out” lets us know right away what kind of terror we’re up against, in a chilling prologue in which the husband (Billy Burke) of a mentally unstable woman (Maria Bello) falls victim to some form of creature or other, which kills him in the dark, as it can’t come into the light. His wife, now a widow, apparently knows this thing and often talks to it in the shadows, which seriously unnerves her pre-teenage stepson, Martin (Gabriel Bateman). (By the way, that’s a great twist to the “imaginary friend” horror-movie trope: instead of the child befriending a supernatural threat, it’s the child’s parent this time.) Too scared to sleep at night, Martin approaches his grown-up stepsister, Rebecca (Teresa Palmer), for help. Rebecca doesn’t feel fit to handle responsibility as a surrogate parent and she doesn’t know what to do about her mother’s erratic behavior which she’s been trying to avoid since she left home, but she knows she has to try and do something. Then she and her boyfriend, Bret (Alexander DiPersia), encounter the shadow figure and find themselves not only fighting for the wellbeing of Rebecca’s mother and Martin but also their own lives.

2016 has been a pretty good year for smart horror so far. From Netflix treats such as “Stranger Things” and “Hush” to sleeper hits such as “10 Cloverfield Lane” and “The Witch,” not to mention the exceptional sequel “The Conjuring 2,” we’ve had smart filmmakers tell us gripping, well-written stories with well-established characters to go along with well-executed terror. “Lights Out” is no exception. We gradually get an interesting explanation about the monster as the film continues and we get to know the characters through it all as well. The more we learn about them, the more empathetic they become. Even the mother isn’t as antagonistic as she seems; she’s merely a pawn being used in a deadly game. We also see an interesting growth from the character of Rebecca as she learns the importance of family she wishes she learned before. I even cared for Bret, who could’ve been just the throwaway boyfriend character in another movie. But I liked this guy; he’s supportive and reliable, but also surprisingly bright and resourceful. That’s another thing I liked about this movie—these characters are smart. They don’t make the dumb mistakes most horror-movie characters make. I especially like the moments in which they need to get light quickly before they’re caught by the monster. The film is also well-made, with ominous atmosphere adding on to the creepy tone.

And on top of that, the film is short—it barely makes it to the 80-minute mark. That’s because the makers of this film knew to keep the film simple and tight.

Problems I have with “Lights Out” are minor. Teresa Palmer’s performance started out a little stiff to me, but I think maybe that was intended to show how lost she is as a character, having no idea what’s going on with her family and being pressured by her boyfriend to commit to a relationship. (She does get better as the film goes on, even if that wasn’t the case.) As far as horror aspects go, I sort of question how this thing is able to move around when the lights are off, since it can appear just about anywhere. But I think the biggest problem I have with the film is the reveal of the monster. Not that it was bad, but it looked like the typical decrepit, decaying old-age makeup job we’ve seen in several recent horror films already. I would’ve preferred not to see the monster up close; my imagination through the buildup was enough to give me the chills.

Fear of the dark is a very common phobia indeed, and “Lights Out” plays with it in a very neat way. Those expecting a scary movie will definitely get it, but they’ll probably get something more from it too. This is a creepshow with actual story and characters, and it really works.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

Comic-book movies have come a long way in the past decade, in that they’re taken more seriously and can have a nice balance of action and comedy (meaning they don’t have to take themselves seriously all the time). The heroes are more relatable, the stories are more intense, technology helps the action sequences look better, a good amount of comedy is supplied without getting too distracting, and we find ourselves long past the era in which the concept of a superhero movie was laughed upon. Of course, some of these superhero movies work more than others—for every “Captain America,” there’s a “Green Lantern”; for every “Guardians of the Galaxy,” there’s a “Fant4stic”; for every “The Dark Knight,” there’s a “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”; and so on. But the point remains—superhero movies in general are getting more respect (and it’s going to take something bigger than “Fant4stic” to kill audiences’ excitement for them). It’s an especially good time for Marvel, with Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe delivering such awesome entertainments as “Iron Man,” “The Avengers,” and the “Captain America” movies, among others.

But as fun as they are, I think we can all agree we know what most of them are doing. Many of these movies try so hard to be taken seriously that we can’t help but talk back/make wisecracks to the movies. That’s especially true of origin stories—the stories that show how Super-Somebody became Super-Somebody. They usually involve these tropes we’ve all seen before: the death of a loved one; the villain rising to power not long after the hero gains abilities; loved ones are kidnapped by the villain; the hero learns very quickly; anything is possible as long as there’s some scientific babble to back it up; there’s a big fight between the hero and villain; the hero always survives, no matter what; and of course, the reluctant hero doesn’t want to be a superhero but ends up becoming one anyway. It’s interesting to see where a hero gets his or her start, but these origin stories are mostly predictable.

That’s why when something as flat-out entertaining as “Deadpool” comes around, it’s all the more welcome. Why exactly, you may ask? Because this is a superhero origin-story movie in which all the tropes are present and the story is as standard as can be, and not only does it know it but it revels in knowing it. It has fun with it—the hero is a smarmy jerk who breaks the fourth wall, makes one goofy wisecrack after another, is actually an anti-hero, swears up a storm, and pretty much says and does many things you wouldn’t hear or see in any other superhero film. It’s almost like he’s (gasp!) one of the audience members (except I think he says most things we wouldn’t think to say; he has that much to say)!

“Deadpool” is based on the Marvel comic-book character, although it’s hard to imagine this playing any part in Disney’s MCU (this film is presented by 20^th Century Fox; they redeem themselves after the Marvel mess that was “Fant4stic” last summer). But maybe that’s for the best, because “Deadpool” is what it is and its audience is appreciative for it. The film is immature, crude, and in bad taste…and I enjoyed it from start to finish. (What can I say? I need as much a good chance of pace as superhero-movie audiences.)

The hero is a rebel—a simple-minded, angry, wisecracking anti-hero who has one thing on his mind: vengeance. We see his origin story (yes, we get the darned “origin story” here) through flashbacks and see how Deadpool became Deadpool. Before becoming invincible due to mutation and spawning a red spandex outfit and mask to become Deadpool, Wade Wilson (played by Ryan Reynolds) was a mercenary in New York City. He fell in love with an escort, Vanessa Carlysle (Morena Baccarin), and they were going to be married. But when Wade developed cancer, he didn’t want to put Vanessa through the stress and left her. He sold his body to a shady scientific experiment, run by a British scientist named Francis Freeman (Ed Skrein), or Ajax as he prefers to be called despite Wade always mockingly calling him by his legal name, and his superhuman sidekick Angel Dust (Gina Carano). He realizes too late that he’s not being transformed by these bizarre mutation tests to be a superhero, but a super-powered slave. His cancer is healed, but side effects, in addition to strength and invincibility, include his face and body becoming horribly disfigured. He managed to escape, destroying most of the factory in the process, but sees himself as a freak whom he’s certain Vanessa wouldn’t take back. That brings us to now, where Deadpool is hunting Francis (er, “Ajax”) down to get a cure for his disfigurements (and kill him after he’s cured), mowing down his sidemen one by one. Watching from afar are two X-Men (yes, there are two X-Men in this movie)—Russian metallic giant Colossus (a CGI creation voiced by Stefan Kapicic) and an attitudinal energy-boosting teenage girl aptly named Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand). They try to bring Deadpool to join them, but Deadpool doesn’t care about being a hero and just wants his girl (and his face) back…as well as Francis impaled by a sword or two. And he doesn’t care who he has to kill in order to get his life back to normal.

“Deadpool” is respectful of its source material. Deadpool is known for being very profane and committing graphic acts of violence—a PG-13 rating simply wouldn’t do for a faithful Deadpool movie (something every fanboy made clear when actor Ryan Reynolds pranked them on Twitter, fooling them into thinking it would be PG-13 instead of R). Sorry, parents who have no idea who Deadpool is and just wanted to take their kids to see a superhero movie on Valentine’s Day weekend. “Deadpool” is rated R for good reasons.

The offbeat style of “Deadpool,” which includes pop cultural references, fourth-wall breaking, one-liners, etc., is especially welcome now, because in our day and age, we have seen so many superhero films (and enjoyed so many as well). Reynolds, director Tim Miller (making his feature debut), and writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick thrive in self-awareness and have fun with the superhero conventions. While I always have my guard up when it comes to this humor (read my “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” review), it works here. Obviously, there are some jokes that don’t work, which usually happens when there’s one after another; but a great amount of the humor really worked for me, because a lot of it felt fresh and new. I didn’t feel tired of the peculiarity. I enjoyed it throughout.

(Oh, I should also mention the most original use of opening credits I’ve ever seen…but I won’t. See for yourself. The less you know beforehand, the better.)

Speaking of things I usually tend to try and resist, Ryan Reynolds is nothing short of terrific as the title role. While I like Reynolds in more subdued roles, like in “Buried” and “Adventureland,” he usually doesn’t do much for me, especially when he’s trying to be funny—he seems rather bland while desperately trying to make me think he’s funnier than he actually is. I can’t put my finger on it, especially when Reynolds is really trying to be funny here, but somehow he succeeds as Deadpool. Maybe I’m used to his style of acting, maybe he’s heightened up the amount of comic timing in his performance, but I think Reynolds is perfect in this movie. He’s not only able to make us understand what he’s going through but he is also flat-out hilarious throughout. Even despite his unorthodox, homicidal methods, he makes us surprisingly care for Deadpool, making for a very effective anti-hero.

“Deadpool” is a different kind of movie, to say the least. It pays homage to familiar tropes in the superhero-film genre, but it also chews them up, spits them out, and eats them back up again (sorry for the disgusting mental image). Is it closer to satire or parody? That’s a difficult question to answer, but either way, “Deadpool” is a definite comedic treasure for the comic-book audience and one of the best surprises of the year so far.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

How do you make the Home-Invasion Thriller feel fresh again? Make the heroine a survivalist who disposes of the invaders left and right (“You’re Next”)? Have it occur on the one night in which all crime is legal (“The Purge”)? Well, either of those could work (…and unfortunately, they didn’t work for me—I didn’t particularly like “You’re Next” or “The Purge,” two more recent home-invasion thrillers), but the point is there needs to be something fresh and new about a very familiar setup. When I heard this detail about “Hush,” director Mike Flanagan’s take on the Home-Invasion Thriller, I immediately wanted to see it—the woman in distress, whose home is being invaded by a psychopath, is deaf and mute.

Comparisons to the 1967 Audrey Hepburn thriller “Wait Until Dark” have been tossed around in reviews. But aside from a vulnerable woman making the most of her handicap in order to fend off people trying to hurt her in her home, there really isn’t much of a comparison. “Hush” and “Wait Until Dark” are two different films with different styles, different material, different situations, and even a different handicap. I think “Wait Until Dark” is the better film of the two, but “Hush” is still a well-done, effective chiller with enough tension and scares to make for a suitably unpleasant viewing when you’re alone at night. (I watched “Hush” alone in my room at night, with the lights off, to see how effective it would be.)

Like I said, the main character, a writer named Maddie (well-played by co-writer Kate Siegel), is both deaf and mute. She lives a quiet life while trying to finish her second novel in a nice, isolated house in the woods. Of course, this is the perfect place for a homicidal maniac to attack at night, and that’s exactly what happens. A masked man (John Gallagher, Jr.) arrives and starts to toy with her psychologically, sending her pictures he took from her phone to the laptop she’s using and severing all connections to potential help. She realizes what’s happening and finds herself in further danger when she discovers the body of a person the masked man has already killed and the masked man reveals his face, just so he can have reason to kill her. From that point on is a deadly game of cat-and-mouse with the deranged man sneaking around outside the house and the vulnerable Maddie desperately trying to outsmart him. Eventually, she finds the courage to fight back, having accepted her deafness as an advantage to inner strength.

“Hush” is director Mike Flanagan’s follow-up to an underrated supernatural chiller called “Oculus,” and he is a true talent in the horror-film genre. He does a terrific job at making the most out of a familiar premise. He sets up the character and the environment, with some background, in the opening, and then he really kicks things into gear with one eerie, tense scenario after another. While the final half is somewhat standard, Flanagan still remembers it’s important to make his audience wonder how something will happen in the outcome of the climax even when they have a good idea as to what could happen. He handles it all pretty well with a good amount of suspense and enough surprises to keep me engaged. I’m curious to see what he comes up with for his next film.

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

With a title like “10 Cloverfield Lane,” you would expect a direct sequel to the 2008 hit, “Cloverfield,” which was hidden in secrecy until release and has seen gained a following (just as this new movie was—even its first trailer wasn’t released until two months before the film’s release). But if you walk into the movie expecting it to be just like “Cloverfield,” you’d be disappointed. “10 Cloverfield Lane” is instead a thriller that may or may not have any relation to “Cloverfield,” aside from J.J. Abrams’ production company, Bad Robot, carrying both films. The great thing about keeping this film in secrecy is that you don’t know what to expect, and as a result, you find yourself surprised and able to appreciate the film for its own merits if you’re willing to keep an open mind. “10 Cloverfield Lane” only slightly ties back to the earlier movie, such as a line about “satellites” that may be familiar to those who have a theory about a subtle visual at the end of “Cloverfield.” Anything else might be implied (and that’s all I’ll say about that).

Mostly, however, “10 Cloverfield Lane” is a tense, claustrophobic thriller set inside a basement/bunker under a farmhouse. We’re kept in that area for a majority of the film. Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) awakens inside, chained to the wall. She learns from her “host,” a hulking, discomforting man named Howard (John Goodman), that he rescued her from a car crash and that he can’t let her or another occupant, Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) go because something apocalyptic seems to have happened up top. “An attack,” he calls it. Michelle learns Howard is a survivalist and believes he might be crazy, but with every possibility comes something to turn it around, leaving Michelle not knowing what to think. And there’s always something about Howard that makes Michelle even more afraid of him. She’s afraid to go outside but even more afraid of staying inside…

The premise is intriguing, and director Dan Trachtenberg (making his feature debut here) does a lot with it within these confined spaces of tight areas of this basement. He doesn’t let the audience know what’s really happening outside, if there even is something happening—is there really something to fear in the world or is Michelle being held captive by this madman? There are numerous deceptions whenever we may have something figured out, leaving us guessing numerously what’s really happening and keeping us on edge with several tense scenes. What’s going on? Who is Howard, really? What does this certain thing in this place mean for us? What are those noises outside? And so on. The film is a terrific thriller because of this. It even reminded me of the mystery-shrouded first couple seasons of Bad Robot’s TV series, “Lost,” and that’s a compliment indeed.

What it does answer by the end is answered subtly for the most part; others are left suitably ambiguous; and then, there’s the final act which will appease probably the most antsy moviegoer who wants some form of closure. I won’t give it away here, but I would be lying if I said that I probably didn’t need to see it, especially since the buildup to it was so darn good (and had me thinking this was going to be the best film of the year so far). It’s a little disjointed while not necessarily “disappointing.” (I may have to see the film a second time to look back at the hints and clues I know were present at times during the film.) It doesn’t hurt the film as much as I thought it did when I walked out—a few hours later, I had thought more about it and felt I should’ve seen it coming from the moment I bought my ticket stub. It’s a little difficult to explain in this review, since it’s spoiler-free, but I think the best way to describe it is this: “10 Cloverfield Lane” works better as its own thriller than as a “blood-relative” to “Cloverfield” (Abrams’ words).

Effectively done filmmaking aids in the film’s favor, with smooth camera movements adding to the increased tension. But also essential is the acting from the three principals. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is strong in a role that is a rarity in horror movies: a heroine who is smart. You know how most horror-movie protagonists make dumb decisions that lead to audience members wanting to shout advice to them through the screen? (“Call the police!” “Get out of the house!” Etc.) I only felt the need to do that once with her (ONCE), and then she immediately did what I wanted her to do at that moment! From the moment she awakens in her strange surroundings for the first time, you’re with her, thinking of what you would do if you were chained to that wall and had to get to your cellphone on the other side of the room. Then there’s John Goodman, one of film’s finest character actors, as Howard—he is nothing short of brilliant in this role. He has to go back and forth between a kind teddy bear of a guy and a scary, dangerous madman, and he pulls off each transition perfectly. John Gallagher Jr. has less to do as sort-of “the other guy,” but he holds his own fine.

I may have my own problems with the ending of “10 Cloverfield Lane,” but what leads up to it is a masterful, suspenseful thriller that makes me look over a nitpick like that. Overall the film is terrific, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the film again in order to be sure of whether or not my feelings toward the final act are altered.