Archive | 2018 RSS feed for this section

Lean on Pete (2018)

13 Jul

Lean-on-pete-header.jpg

Smith’s Verdict: ****

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I’ve seen gritty, realistic indie films about the issues faced by young people. I’ve seen movies about a boy growing a special bond with an animal, namely a horse. I haven’t seen a film quite like “Lean on Pete,” which is a unique hybrid of both. I could try and describe this film to peers/colleagues, and I wouldn’t come close to being accurate. Yes, “Lean on Pete” features a boy and his horse, trying to get through a world that doesn’t understand them. But there’s far more on this film’s mind than what you might expect.

What “Lean on Pete” ends up being is a sometimes-sweet, sometimes-harrowing, always-emotionally-gripping drama about a good boy trying to find a place to call “home.” In the process of a teenage boy trying to locate the American Dream, we’re obliged to view something that could best be described as “The Grapes of Wrath” mixed with “The 400 Blows.” (As much as I hate to compare one particular film to two other particular films, that’s the best method I could use to try and describe “Lean on Pete” to people. But this is a review, so let’s try and move on.)

The thing that makes writer-director Andrew Haigh’s “Lean on Pete” even more special is that it’s not afraid to have it both ways with the audience—it wants to punch them in the gut with gritty realism and harsh truths, but it also wants to touch their hearts and make them feel hopeful and positive too. To do both is always tricky but also very welcome. When the film delves into scenes of deep, dark truth, it makes the lighter moments all the more appreciated.

Our hero is a 15-year-old boy named Charley, played excellently by Charlie Plummer (“King Jack”), who has recently moved to Portland, Oregon from Spokane, Washington, after his ne’er-do-well father (Travis Fimmel) got a new job opportunity. All his friends & football teammates are far away, he has a lot of time all to himself, and his dad spends more time with loose women than his own son, but Charley does his best to deal with it. (One of the most refreshing things about this film is that this kid tries to look at the bright side of things instead of mope and complain all the time about his plight.)

Things look up when he comes across a racetrack, where he’s offered a job from a horse trainer named Del (Steve Buscemi) to become a stablehand and help care for the horses, one of which is an aging quarter-horse named Lean on Pete. Charley enjoys the pay, but he enjoys the company of the horses more. (And of course, Del becomes a father figure to Charley; as crotchety as he may be, he does occasionally show signs of warmth. Not that Charley’s actual father is a bad dad; it’s just that he has a hard enough time taking care of himself, let alone a teenager.) Charley likes Lean on Pete more and more, but as Del and a vet jockey named Bonnie (Chloe Sevigny) warn him, “Horses aren’t pets.” They see these horses as little more than assets that need to be used as long as possible. When Charley learns what happens to horses when they get too old and used up, he becomes more concerned about Lean on Pete’s wellbeing.

Through unexpected circumstances, which I won’t explain here, Charley runs away, taking Lean on Pete with him on an unpredictable journey. Together, they make their way across the American Desert to see Charley’s loving Aunt Margy (Alison Elliott), whom Charley hasn’t seen since childhood. Along the way, Charley meets many interesting characters who deserve films of their own. Some are willing to help him; others, not so much. But the most intriguing thing about these encounters is they all seem to represent different ideals of the American Dream, particularly the tragic types of those who have tried and failed. What’s even more tragic is that even Charley has to do some of these things in order to survive.

There’s a particularly telling scene in which Charley talks to Lean on Pete about one of the memories he often likes to look back on. It’s a simple time but it meant a whole lot to him. Back in Spokane, one of his football teammates invited him over to his house for breakfast one morning. In a nice house with a nice family and good food and pleasant conversation with good company, Charley felt like he was home. The way he describes the importance of this fond memory makes you realize what it truly is this poor kid truly wants, even if it’s just one more day like that. My heart went out to Charley, and I hoped against hope that he would find what he was looking for. And I can imagine other people who see “Lean on Pete” will have the same wish.

In the end, “Lean on Pete” isn’t about a boy and his horse so much as it is about a boy looking for home. With great acting, excellent cinematography, and a weight to the story that feels “real,” “Lean on Pete” is a very special film that I will call one of the best films of 2018.

Advertisements

Brigsby Bear (2017)

13 May

brigsbybear

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

SPOILER WARNING!

Originally, I wasn’t going to write about “Brigsby Bear.” Why? Well, because I think the best way to see this movie is to not know much about it beforehand. I came into this movie cold, without much knowledge of the plot, other than it involved some kind of children’s program involving a guy in a ratty bear costume, with a gigantic bear helmet with a moving mouth. And so, I thought it was best for everyone else to do the same…not that many people read my blog anyway—when I had that in mind, I thought, just do it already.

Anyway, I’ll repeat: SPOILER WARNING!

“Brigsby Bear” is an original piece of independent cinema; one that I think should be cherished and studied. Even when it’s in danger of becoming one of those indie Sundance-fitting “dramedies” that seem too high on their own spirits, it continues to bounce back with loads of charm and sentimentality (and originality) that I can’t help but want to hug this movie for being what it is. And what it is, is one of my favorite films of recent years. (This would have been high up on my best-of-2017 list, had I seen it a few months before. But better late than never, right?)

I’ll tread lightly here as I go into the story of “Brigsby Bear.” For starters, just who is Brigsby Bear, anyway? Well, he’s the star of a low-budget, educational sci-fi television show that teaches unusual moral lessons such as “curiosity is an unnatural emotion!” He’s a heroic bear with loyal sidekicks (the Smile Sisters) with whom to team up and battle a dastardly villain called the Sun Snatcher. Each episode features something new and educational (including complicated math problems) and ends with a lesson addressed to the show’s viewing audience. (If you thought Barney was too much for little children, wait until you see what Brigsby Bear has to offer. We do get to see many clips of the show, and it’s a riot.)

Who’s watching the show? James. He has an obsession with the show and everything within it, having grown up with it throughout the years. James (played by the film’s co-writer, Kyle Mooney) is in his mid-20s and has collected every VHS volume of the series since childhood. He’s way too old to still be trapped in the world of Brigsby, and yes, you could say it’s an unhealthy obsession, but then we see his upbringing and we see that it’s all he knows. This is where things get even stranger, particularly with his parents (Mark Hamill and Jane Adams), who speak to him with the tact and sensitivity a parent gives to a young child, and his home, which is actually an underground bunker. (I watched this film with my fiancée, and her reaction was the same as mine: what’s going on here??)

OK, that’s the setup. Where is this going? There are many ways this story could go from here. Are they in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, in which they’re the only survivors? Is that why they wear gas masks when they go outside? Well, it turns out that James’ “parents” aren’t his parents at all; they abducted James when he was an infant and created this whole ruse to keep James from going outside. Not only that; they created the Brigsby Bear show themselves, to teach James about the way things are outside to keep him entertained, to educate him, and to keep him from wanting anything else out of life.

Now rescued by police and reunited with his birth parents (Matt Walsh and Michaela Watkins), James has to adapt to a whole new world with a whole new family (including a younger sister, played by Ryan Simpkins), numerous activities, and all kinds of different pop culture. Much of it is nice and welcoming, including people who want to help him (such as a friendly cop played by Greg Kinnear, a therapist played by Claire Danes, and a creative teen played by Jorge Lendeborg Jr.) and entertaining movies (such as a satirical look at family sports comedies), but everything else overwhelms James, as it’s all too much for him to take in, making him feel lost in this strange, big universe. He’s also still transfixed on the power brought to him by Brigsby, which makes sense as it’s the only source of entertainment he’s been used to for decades. He needs to see the next episode…or make one on his own…

And this is where I, as an aspiring filmmaker, fell in love with “Brigsby Bear.” Much of the movie involves James, his new friend who likes to experiment with visual effects, and many helpful others making their own Brigsby Bear movie, complete with costume. If I thought the making-a-movie sequences in “Be Kind Rewind” where wonderfully strange and whimsical, I hadn’t seen anything yet. What’s even better is that it’s also sweet.

And that’s where I’ll stop writing about the story. There’s more to enjoy about “Brigsby Bear,” and I don’t feel like I’ve spoiled too much of the movie. But again, I warned you there would be spoilers and that it’s best to go into this movie as cold as possible. Maybe I’m writing this review for myself, because I immediately felt like writing about it after I saw it.

It would’ve been so easy to make James the butt of so many mean-spirited jokes about how he doesn’t understand the way the world is and/or how socially awkward he is as a result. But thankfully, this movie treats the situation delicately, because Mooney, director David McCary, and co-writer Kevin Costello like James and don’t want to embarrass him. That’s what I admire most about “Brigsby Bear.” (I dare even say I actually enjoyed this fish-out-of-water story a lot more than “Being There,” with Peter Sellers, an obvious comparison.)

“Brigsby Bear” is a wonderful film with a good sense of humor and an even greater heart to go with it. If there’s anything more important than a comedy that can make you laugh, it’s a comedy that can make you feel. That’s exactly how I describe “Brigsby Bear.”

Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi (2017)

5 May

Kylo-Ren-Luke-Skywalker-and-Rey-in-Star-Wars-The-Last-Jedi.jpg

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

OK, let’s get this over with. I know a lot of “Star Wars” fans are hurling backlash like crazy (though, to be fair, some of them are lowering their weapons again after seeing this film a second time), and I’m going to try and address it while also giving my interpretation as to why it’s happened.

“The Last Jedi” is Episode VIII in the (mostly-) beloved “Star Wars” franchise. Released two years after Episode VII (“The Force Awakens”), audiences were concerned that it would be a pale copy of “The Empire Strikes Back,” seeing as how “The Force Awakens” was seen as a pale copy of “A New Hope.” What they saw instead was something new with characters introduced in the previous film with only a few flashes of “The Empire Strikes Back” (and “Return of the Jedi” as well) in a story that offers hardly any easy answers to difficult conflict while also giving us a wild thrill ride. And that, in my opinion, is exactly what “Star Wars” sequels need to be…despite countless “Star Wars” fans complaining that “The Last Jedi” went past the norm even though they were previously complaining that it was too in the norm before with “The Force Awakens.”

(By the way, this is what happens when audiences put too many expectations in their highly anticipated movies: they almost become predetermined to dislike them.)

It’s time to be more open-minded to new ideas and new movies, because let’s face it, we’re not going to get the movies we love again because we already have them. “Star Wars” (“A New Hope,” that is; I never call it that regularly though) and “The Empire Strikes Back” are two of my favorite movies, and I can watch them whenever I want. What I need are more “Star Wars” movies that will entertain and challenge me, like “The Last Jedi” did. Maybe Episode IX will satisfy the naysayers, since I’m not sure anyone could guess where it’s going to go. (And trust me, I’m not going to try.)

OK, enough of that. Let’s get to reviewing “The Last Jedi.”

“The Last Jedi” gives us what we expect to see in a “Star Wars” movie—thrilling space battles, tense showdowns between blaster and lightsaber, imposing villains, brave heroes, and even a little drama to be found in connection to the light and the dark sides of that ever strangely fascinating entity known as The Force. But there’s something more to element of the “internal struggle” that is not only satisfying but also compelling and deep. How often in modern action movies do I feel so strongly for what the heroes and the villain are feeling deep within themselves that they can’t fully communicate to others? When humanity and the pursuit of victory and/or answers to inner desires are at war with each other constantly, what comes next in the name of survival?

This question comes through in the characters of Rey (Daisy Ridley) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). Rey is a rebellious would-be fighter against the sinister First Order, which Kylo Ren partially commands. The Force connects them somehow, for some reason, and even though Rey is already determined to see Kylo as her enemy, it turns out things aren’t as simple as that. Just as things didn’t appear to be so black-and-white in “The Empire Strikes Back,” Rey learns that Kylo Ren still has his humanity, even if it’s shrouded by anger, resentment, and vengeance that is constantly overtaking him.

These characters become more fascinating to me the more I know about them, as does the character of Finn (John Boyega), a former Stormtrooper who defected and ran to join the rebels in the war. Even when escape is on his mind to evade battle, he still stays to defend his allies, whom he now calls his friends. Finn was already an interesting character when we realized a Stormtrooper could no longer be a faceless assassin; now we get to see him grow as a person.

I mentioned in my review of “The Force Awakens” that I liked the character of dashing hero Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) but also wished he could’ve been utilized more. I knew that in the follow-up, he would get more screen-time, which could be open for more opportunities for development. And I was right in ways I didn’t expect. In “The Last Jedi,” he’s an anxious brave who wants to shoot first and ask questions later. When it seems that the methods of his superiors aren’t giving direct results, he sets out to prove that his ways are more effective. And in the end, he learns that being stealthy is going to help win the day instead of loud, conspicuous heroics. That’s such a refreshing arc for this type of character; it would’ve been too easy for him to prove that his ways are the right ways, but instead, he’s proven otherwise.

And yes, let’s get to the more familiar characters we know from the previous “Star Wars” films. General Leia (the late Carrie Fisher) is trying to figure out the best way to survive another day without rushing into a new attack mission and risking more lives, as she knows from the past only makes things worse. Something happens to her midway through the film that a lot of fans have spewed negative emotions about, but honestly…I didn’t mind it so much. It involves The Force, to which her connection to it has already been established, and I was open to the possibility of her using it to her advantage. That’s all I’ll say about it, for those who haven’t seen the movie yet. And then there’s Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), finally back in the story after so many years of exile. Rey seeks to be taught the Jedi way and sees him as her best hope. But it’s not as simple as, say, Yoda teaching Luke the ways of The Force long ago. Luke feels that the Jedi religion needs to come to an end due to numerous major mistakes made in the past by himself and other Jedi Knights (you can look back to the prequels for their biggest errors of judgment). His development leads to yet another internal conflict that leaves much for the viewers to take in (that is, when they want to).

I’m being very vague about the story and other details involving characters. Even though most readers have seen “The Last Jedi” by now, I’ll be kind for those who still haven’t and tell you that I think it’s worth watching as long as you open your mind up to new ideas. If you can’t do that, you’re especially going to be confused rather than delighted at the new developments in The Force and the abilities one can do when in full control of it…

Come on, guys. Who are we to decide what The Force can make “Star Wars” characters do anyway?

Also, I have to add—this movie is also very funny. Thankfully, Rian Johnson follows J.J. Abrams’ lead from “The Force Awakens” in allowing the audience to breathe and take in a few good laughs here and there. (Luke’s initial reaction upon seeing Rey for the first time is a definite highlight. We waited two years in between films for that?)

If I have a problem with the movie, it’s that it seems like a solid hour-and-a-half-long movie trying to pad itself out with some filler, particularly with Finn and a new ally, a spunky, warm fan-girl type named Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) as they embark on their own side-journey while the more interesting stuff is happening with Rey, Luke, Poe, and Kylo Ren. But even that, I don’t mind that much, because it is interesting to see more of this universe (even if the social commentary they come across in their travels is a little too on-the-nose).

Oh, and there’s also the Porgs, the new creatures obviously here to sell more toys… Whatever, they’re there.

I won’t even complain about the evil Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis), who’s just some jerk in control of everything. Remember, we thought the Emperor in “Return of the Jedi” was “just some jerk in control of everything” before we saw him fleshed out more in the prequels. Maybe Episode IX will at least give us some answer as to who he was.

There are a lot of surprises to be found in “The Last Jedi,” and I admire writer/director Rian Johnson for the ability to entertain us while also treat us like we can take a little complexity here or there. And I’m glad to hear that some naysayers are changing their minds about this movie after seeing it again and thinking more about the possibilities it opened up. Here’s hoping more of them will learn to lighten up and find better reasons for hating a movie.

A Futile and Stupid Gesture (2018)

4 May

futileandstupidgesture-forte-gleeson-office-talking.jpg

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

If you’ve read my review of “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl,” you know that one of my biggest pet peeves in comedies is the kind of self-referential humor I referred to as “Kind of Aware But Not Quite.” The definition I used is “when a film is so self-aware that it has a character point out the clichés, thinking that commenting on it will make it less of a cliché.” But if you also read my reviews of “The Big Short” and “Deadpool,” you know I’m not against all self-aware comedy and that sometimes it can work to a film’s advantage. Really, it’s a matter of how well it’s written in order to work effectively.

There is a moment midway in David Wain’s hyper-aware biopic “A Futile and Stupid Gesture” that made me both laugh loudly and smile widely. It’s when the film’s narrator does something I think a lot of movielovers wish would happen in many other “based-on-a-true-story” biopics: he lists all of the things that happened in real-life that were not focused upon for this story and cut either for a shorter running time or “…just because [we] didn’t feel like it.” That’s the kind of poking-fun at the creative liberties of biopic storytelling that made the whole film work for me.

“A Futile and Stupid Gesture” tells the story of Doug Kenney, the influential but disturbed comedic genius who co-founded National Lampoon magazine and was responsible for launching the careers of many famous comedians such as Bill Murray, Chevy Chase, Harold Ramis, and many others. He had a lot of things going for him…and also a lot of things going against him, such as drug dependency and commitment issues. For a biopic about such an artist to work, you might expect something along the lines of Richard Attenborough’s “Chaplin” or Oliver Stone’s “The Doors.” Instead, we get something not as tedious or as heavy-handed—an ultra-meta comedy that pulls no punches in inside-jokes and fourth-wall breaking.

Mind you, it doesn’t ignore the heavier material; it just chooses not to dwell on it so much. It seems like the movie Doug Kenney himself would have wanted about himself.

Doug Kenney died at age 33 (to this day, people are unsure if he fell from a cliff or jumped off). But we still have a narrative device to tell the story, walk into scenes, and talk directly to the camera: a version of a modern Doug (played by Martin Mull). He’s there to reassure the audience that everyone knows they’re making a farce about something true to life, even going as far as to call out the actors playing comedic icons—“These actors don’t look exactly like the real people, but do you think I looked like Will Forte when I was 27? Do you think Will Forte is 27?”

And yes, Will Forte does star in the movie as younger Doug, who takes up a majority of screen-time. As the story begins, Doug is celebrating his time at Harvard University, creating the Harvard Lampoon into something more outrageous and wacky. Once the college days are over, however, Doug wanders aimlessly, dragging his friend/writing-partner Henry Beard (Domhnall Gleeson, wonderfully droll here) along with him. Wanting to continue making funny magazines for a career, Doug and Henry launch National Lampoon magazine, filling it with the blackest comedy and the most disgraceful material, resulting in them gaining popularity (even if many groups end up suing them for being offensive). The magazine helped launch the careers of many promising writers (most of which aren’t focused upon in this movie, which Modern Doug acknowledges) and also, with its hour-long radio program (The National Lampoon Radio Hour), put many comedians in proper notice. The supporting cast mainly consists of game actors portraying comedic icons, the most effective of which are Jon Daly as Bill Murray, John Gemberling as John Belushi, and Joel McHale as Chevy Chase (fitting, seeing as how McHale and Chase were co-stars on the TV series “Community”).

As time goes on, and many of his colleagues continue their careers with “Saturday Night Live,” Doug sets his sights on something higher, like movies. Thus, he co-writes “Animal House,” which becomes one of the highest grossing movies of all time, which is a big accomplishment for a lowbrow comedy. His next film is “Caddyshack,” directed by Harold Ramis, which is Doug’s way of sticking it to the country-club snobs his father associated with. But executives aren’t seeing his vision, he’s not proud of how the movie is turning out (especially after seeing “Airplane!” which is a gigantic comedic hit), and his depression and drug dependency gets worse as a result. (Side-note: the scenes that recreate the atmosphere of the makings of “Animal House” and “Caddyshack” are spot-on; I would’ve like to see more of that.) There are people in his life that want to help him, like his second wife Kathryn Walker (Emmy Rossum) and Chase. But nothing anyone tries to say or do to help him is enough.

OK, that sounds a little depressing. And honestly, it is. But would you rather the film just ignore it altogether? That’d be even worse, wouldn’t it? So, props to director David Wain and writers John Aboud & Michael Colton for doing what they can with this kind of material while also trying to have fun with it as well. “A Futile and Stupid Gesture” ends with Young Doug and Modern Doug meeting each other at Doug’s funeral and attempting to influence the mourners to “laugh, dammit!” Somehow, I get the feeling Doug Kenney would’ve liked the ultimate result of this scenario.

The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

5 Feb

luxqwnfkxzczxhrkdehz.jpg

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

The “Cloverfield” film series, created by J.J. Abrams’ company Bad Robot, continues to intrigue me in terms of creativity and surprise, both in substance in its entries and its ability to sneak up on the audience. Last time, with the secret entry “10 Cloverfield Lane,” nobody was aware of its existence until about a month before its theatrical release. This time, with #3, entitled “The Cloverfield Paradox,” everything was kept secret until the Super Bowl, during which a trailer was revealed to viewers…and immediately followed up with the film’s release on Netflix! (Now that’s a pleasant surprise, more pleasant than who actually won the Super Bowl, for some people.)

All three films are science-fiction horror films that take place within the same universe, but they don’t all revolve around the same characteristics. (Actually, there are a few that are noticeable, but they’re not among the focuses of the films. I wouldn’t worry about trying to connect all three films together just yet.) Instead, they all take familiar elements from similar scenarios (the monster-movie, the contained-thriller, the space-station/haunted-house) and present new things to them to put the audience in a world of intrigue, terror and thought. For the first “Cloverfield” in 2008, we had a found-footage approach to a Godzilla-like story; for “10 Cloverfield Lane,” we were kept underground for a large portion of the film until we were aware of what was really going on upstairs; and for “The Cloverfield Paradox,” most of the action is set in a space station, where something goes really, really wrong that may result in bad things on Earth that may or may not have to do with elements from the first two films.

(That’s all I’ll say without giving away spoilers, but really, are you expecting anything less than…”Cloverfield”-esque elements?)

Set in the near future (not quite specified in terms of time), Earth is undergoing an energy crisis. The Cloverfield station is launched by collective space agencies to complete a particle accelerator that will help save the planet (or, as someone on Earth argues, could bring it to its destruction). After two years, the accelerator finally seems to work. But then, after launching it toward Earth, something goes wrong, and the crew onboard the Cloverfield station find themselves experiencing all sorts of inconsistencies in the universe and even in themselves.

What’s happened? Why does everything seem off? Why do things appear/disappear? What’s happening on Earth? And who is the strange passenger that seemingly appears on the ship and knows more than the crew does about her? What’s the connection to the other “Cloverfield” films? Some of these questions are answered, while others are best left to interpretation (unless you see the film a second time and something clicks in your mind, leading to a probable conclusion). And also, much like with “10 Cloverfield Lane,” the filmmakers (which, in this case, include producer J.J. Abrams and director Julius Onah) don’t feel the need to spoon-feed their audience with numerous details. We’re just thrown into a drastic situation, and these things are what our characters have to go through.

There’s some good character moments as well, particularly involving an appealing, fully-developed lead heroine named Hamilton, played very well by Gugu Mbatha-Raw. She has a tragic backstory and a husband (Roger Davies) she left on Earth, and so when certain things about this new phenomenon are revealed to her, she has choices to make that aren’t easy to figure out as one may think. There’s also a nice moment in which we see a crew member named Kiel (David Oyelowo) crying by himself after the trouble starts, and then he collects himself before returning to his crew to take command. Most of the side characters (the rest of the Cloverfield crew) are types, but they’re likable types, particularly Chris O’Dowd as the comic-relief who has a particularly bad experience involving one of his body parts and yet still has one-liners to crack.

It’s easy to make the comparison to “Alien,” seeing as how most of the action takes place on this space station and Hamilton could be seen as a Ripley-type. But “The Cloverfield Paradox” has enough dark colors in its production design of this space station to give it its own identity (much more than 1997’s “Event Horizon,” which must have stolen the set from “Alien” to make up for its lack of original style). The CGI visual effects are effectively done, which made me wish I could’ve seen this film on a big screen rather than a small screen. (And I saw this film on my smartphone, which is too small a screen for a film of this spectacle.) But to be fair, “The Cloverfield Paradox” is less about spectacle & action and more about thrills & story.

Look at it like an updated “Star Trek: The Next Generation” story with weird occurrences on the USS Enterprise (or better yet, the “Lost in Space” movie some of us were waiting for). There’s mystery, there’s intrigue, there’s fear, there’s paranoia, there’s questions, there’s answers, and then there’s a resolution that some audience members may approve of while others may be disappointed. Either way, “The Cloverfield Paradox” is an effective confined-space thriller (literally in space) and a very pleasant surprise to stream on Netflix just after its announcement during the Super Bowl.

Note: I heard a fourth “Cloverfield” film has completed production, and this one intrigues me more than the others—it’s set in WWII and is described as a “supernatural Nazi thriller.”

Before I Wake (2018)

3 Feb

hero_Before-I-Wake-2018.jpg

Smith’s Verdict: ***

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

This was not supposed to happen. A horror film released on the first weekend of January (and on Netflix, no less) is not supposed to be this thought-provoking. It’s not supposed to keep me wondering about this supernatural aspect or that origin of the central boogeyman in the story. But nevertheless, “Before I Wake,” directed by Mike Flanagan (the best horror director working today—see “Oculus,” “Hush,” “Gerald’s Game,” and even “Ouija: Origin of Evil”), is a horror film that could’ve been released on New Year’s Day, and it still would’ve been noticed as something good.

(Actually, this was originally supposed to be released theatrically in September 2016, on the same day as “The Disappointments Room” and “Blair Witch”…needless to say, I would have preferred seeing this horror film over either of those other two.)

Remember that “Twilight Zone” episode in which Bill Mumy was an odd child that could make his many wishes come true? Well, for young Cody (Jacob Tremblay, one of the best child actors working today), it’s the same principle—his dreams become reality. He goes to sleep, and the objects of his dreams manifest themselves physically. For instance, upon moving into the house of his new foster parents and learning about their long-lost son, the foster parents, Jessie (Kate Bosworth) and Mark (Thomas Jane), see their son right there in the living room as soon as Cody is asleep. But that’s not all—Cody is suffering trauma due to his mother passing away, seemingly taken away from him from a dark entity known as The Canker Man. So, just as his pleasant dreams become reality, so does The Canker Man.

I have to be honest and say that supernatural horror stories involving some kind of demonic presence are starting to bore me, mainly because it just seems ghosts & demons can just…do things. It doesn’t matter if it’s consistent or how much time passes in between hauntings or even what is the extent of their abilities. They just do…whatever they want. So, as “Before I Wake” was continuing, I didn’t care about what exactly The Canker Man was…until the final act, when we figure out what Cody has gone through before meeting his foster parents, and there’s a psychological twist that makes everything we’ve seen before a lot more interesting. I grow tired of over-the-top horror-movie climaxes, but this one had me intrigued. (No, I won’t give it away here.)

Mike Flanagan is a director who truly knows and love movies. He’s shown special talent in the horror genre, and it’s clear he’s not making these films simply to frighten or give us visceral reactions—he wants to tell stories with genuine characters and give us an effective thrill ride while we’re getting to know these people and admiring the craftsmanship as well. And even though The Canker Man is frightening, it’s where he comes from that makes his presence (and the film, by default) something to think about. And I give props to Flanagan for not giving us yet another weirdly-defined ghost/demon that can’t be explained.

Much of the film has to do less with scares and more with dealing with childhood phobias and coping with parental mistakes, as Cody has many skeletons in his closet even at the age of 8 and Jessie and Mark are struggling with the death of their own child while they have to care for this new boy in their home (Mark feels responsible for his son’s drowning in the bathtub). And I appreciated Flanagan’s methods in making it more than a standard horror film in which a child is scared by a random boogeyman. The film also brings interesting developments with Jessie, such as: if she can see her son when Cody sleeps, is she using Cody to continue fulfilling the wish of seeing him again, and how far will that go? (Mark, of course, knows better—this isn’t their dead son at all; it’s only Cody’s interpretation of their son, from what Cody saw in photos/videos of him.) This causes Jessie to think more about what it means to be a mother, especially when she does something that makes authorities see her as unfit to care for Cody.

“Before I Wake” has its flaws, such as narrative pacing issues, but its heart is in the right place, it had me guessing throughout and thinking afterward, and it is rather scary at times. “Before I Wake” is an effective horror film…I just wish I saw it back in September 2016. But it’s a good way to start the year 2018.