Archive | 2023 RSS feed for this section

Biosphere (2023)

27 Nov

Smith’s Verdict: ***
Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Biosphere” is the latest from Duplass Brothers Productions (DBP) and also the directorial debut of Mel Eslyn, who is in fact the president of DBP and best known for film producing. It’s a science-fiction buddy-movie hybrid film featuring only two characters in one contained space–and right away, I was hooked on seeing this film because Mark Duplass & Sterling K. Brown play the two characters in said-one contained space.

Duplass (who also co-wrote the film with Eslyn) is Billy and Brown is Ray. They’re the only two people living within the confines of a loft-condo-sized bio-dome–and they’re apparently the last two people left alive on Earth. We don’t know what exactly happened or how the world seemingly ended–we just know that Billy, who was the U.S. President prior to the event, accidentally had something to do with it, and Ray, a scientist, is his childhood friend who built the dome and brought Billy in at apparently the right time. Oh, and there’s nothing but blackness outside. Billy & Ray are the best of friends. They do everything together, they work together to keep everything running that keeps them alive, and they often chat about everything from “Super Mario Brothers” to other pop-culture references such as “Jurassic Park” (“Life finds a way”).

Two things happen that throw their whole personal environment out of whack. One is there’s a mysterious green light outside, seen through the glass layers of the dome–what does it mean? Another is…well, I’ll leave that for you to discover. I didn’t see it coming, and…let me just say that even if you can guess where these characters are headed in the film’s general story, I doubt you’d be able to guess how they get there.

…And I’ll also say that it is probably the strangest twist of any film this year and it will probably turn some people off because it is insane how it transpires–but I stayed with it because I was curious as to how these two characters, who are engaging and played by two truly engaging actors with undeniable chemistry, handle it. Thankfully, so much of it is intriguing and kept me invested in where it was going.

Now…I’m not entirely sure I get the ending of “Biosphere.” BUT I am invested enough to ponder it. This is one of those films I may have to see again in order to fully appreciate it–but I definitely will, because it gripped me on the first viewing.

Take that recommendation for what it’s worth. But I’ll try and sum it up again because I did enjoy this film:

It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Creed III (2023)

27 Nov

Smith’s Verdict: ****
Reviewed by Tanner Smith

I’m a big fan of the “Rocky” franchise and I really liked the first two films in the spinoff (“Creed”) franchise–hell, I’ll even say Creed II is now my second-favorite in the overall franchise (behind Rocky). So I was really looking forward to seeing “Creed III,” especially since Adonis Creed himself, Michael B. Jordan, was directing this time!

It didn’t disappoint at all. I loved this film.

“Creed III” continues going for the emotional depth of the previous films. Creed was about going your own way and managing your temper. “Creed II” was about maintaining and defending a legacy. And “Creed III” is about battling demons you thought would be kept in the closet forever.

In this case, Adonis Creed (played again by Michael B. Jordan), who is now retired from boxing and oversees the careers of up-and-coming fighters, reunites with an old friend, Damian “Dame” Anderson (Jonathan Majors). Damian and Adonis grew up together in the group home from where Adonis was rescued by Mary Anne Creed (Phylicia Rashad), and Damian, who would become a Golden Gloves champion with a solid career ahead of him, was still a big-brother figure to Adonis, who would often accompany him to matches. That all changed when a violent incident in 2002 caused Damian to be arrested (while Adonis escaped) and the two to break away.

(Side-note: the opening prologue, which shows only PART of the violent backstory, is very gripping. The actors playing the younger versions of the characters are great, and Jordan’s direction is reminiscent of a Scorsese flick.)

Well, now, Damian makes his way back into Adonis’ life and tells him he wants a shot at the title–even though, as Adonis tries to tell him, Damian has been out of the ring for two decades and has no professional boxing experience. But Damian has a lot of unbridled rage and isn’t afraid of any challenges, and he feels he deserves everything that Adonis has, since everything he was promised was taken away from him when he went to prison. Soon enough, an opportunity strikes when Adonis needs to assure a rival for an upcoming match with his new client, Felix Chavez (Jose Benavidez). Remembering how his old mentor Rocky Balboa got his big break, he decides to give Damian a shot…

I won’t go into how this proves to be a big mistake or how the events lead to what the advertising promises (a match between Adonis and Damian)–but I will remind you that Rocky was remembered for giving it all he had and taking it from the heavyweight champion, whereas Damian just wants attention and doesn’t give a damn about how to get it.

There’s a lot of gripping drama in the tense dynamic between the two friends turned rivals, but there’s also room for emotional love and affection in the scenes with Adonis and his mother, Adonis and his deaf daughter (who wants to fight), and Adonis and his wife Bianca (Tessa Thompson). It reminds us that Adonis still has more anger to overcome and most importantly a loving force to fight for.

And even the boxing scenes, which I’m normally tired of by now, had me invested–though, that might be because the final fight has some stylistic touches added to it. (That’s all I’ll say about that.)

I’m not sure where Rocky Balboa is during all this, but I’m sure he’s out there somewhere (maybe with his son, who “lives in some place called Vancouver with his girlfriend”) and rooting for Adonis to know when to say when and join him in retirement–if for no other reason than to just look back on the good times they shared together, just as Rocky did with Adonis’ father Apollo Creed way back when.

And honestly, I’d like to see that in “Creed IV.” But we’ll see…

Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret (2023)

27 Nov

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

I don’t know why it took so long for a film based Judy Blume’s great, challenging novel “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret” to come about, but the film we got more than 50 years after the book’s publication is very much a perfect adaptation. It’s heartfelt, hilarious, inspiring, authentic, and relatable.

I was looking forward to this because it was written and directed by Kelly Fremon Craig, who made The Edge of Seventeen, another great film about young people. I knew she’d be able to portray both the comedy and trauma of coming of age in film just as Blume did in the novel. (She also made the perfect choice of keeping the original story’s 1970 setting instead of modernizing it.)

The film is very funny (I laughed out loud at least 3 times, I kid you not–in particular, one scene set at a pharmacy had the whole theater in stitches), but it doesn’t back down from its serious moments. Both the comedy and the drama feel like they belong in the same film–that’s not easy to do, and this film does it flawlessly.

Everyone in this cast is superb. Abby Ryder Forston gives a natural and lovable performance as our 11-year-old heroine Margaret Simon, who’s in such a hurry to grow up that she’s in danger of missing out on special moments. (She’s aided by other child actors who are also very natural and winning.) And the adult actors don’t half-ass it at all–Kathy Bates is great as Margaret’s grandmother; Rachel McAdams & Benny Safdie are wonderful as Margaret’s parents; and I would’ve liked to see more of Echo Kellum as Margaret’s 6th-grade teacher who encourages her to explore religion. (Part of Margaret’s journey in this story is her exploring Judaism and Christianity, as her mother is Christian and her father is Jewish but neither one is religious and they let her choose her own path when she’s older.)

There’s a subplot that I don’t think was in the book about Margaret’s maternal grandparents–I won’t give away what happens, but even that worked so well in this film because it helps add to Margaret’s big ball of confusion and thus aided in her resolution at the end.

I get the feeling this film adaptation of “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret” will be just as relevant as its source material to audiences of all ages, and I highly recommend it.

BlackBerry (2023)

27 Nov

Smith’s Verdict: ****
Reviewed by Tanner Smith

One of the most entertaining films I’ve seen in 2023…is a film about the invention of the first smartphone.

Doesn’t sound so interesting or entertaining, but…

I was hooked on seeing “BlackBerry” simply because it’s the latest film from auteur filmmaker Matt Johnson. His first feature The Dirties is one of my personal favorite films, I also really liked his second film Operation Avalanche, and I also admired his Viceland series Nirvanna the Band the Show–I will see ANYTHING that he does, even if it’s about the creation of the BlackBerry.

This isn’t another film about what corporate greed and hubris do to a creative, idealistic person, nor is it a film that encourages us to demand to take back the BlackBerry phone. (And you wouldn’t want to give up your iPhone, would you?) It’s a film about someone who has a great idea that changes the way we communicate in the world…until someone else (let’s call him Steve Jobs) comes up with a better idea. And it can be taken any way you want it, whether it’s about how the characters went about it, or the little things they overlooked in making it, or even WHY they wanted to do it in the first place, or whatever.

Johnson avoids his trademark faux-documentary approach and instead gives us a fly-on-the-wall technique, with his usual cinematographer Jared Raab shooting the proceedings like a docudrama. But he’s such a movie buff, I wouldn’t doubt he simply wanted to make his own biopic along the lines as “The Social Network” or “All the President’s Men.” And because he’s so good at grabbing an audience with his vision, “BlackBerry” hooked me and wouldn’t let me go until the end…actually, not even the end, because I’ve seen this film at least five other times since.

Jay Baruchel stars as Mike Lazaridis, the awkward but brilliant co-founder of the Canadian software company Research In Motion. (Johnson, who always appears in his own films, co-stars as Doug Fregin, the goofy man-child co-founder of the company.) RIM (as it’s abbreviated) is going out of business, but in comes Jim Balsillie (Glenn Howerton), a ruthless businessman. He was fired from another tech company for stealing a coworker’s presentation–at that point, the moviegoer sitting next to me muttered, “Dick!”–and is willing to take Mike’s idea of a BlackBerry mobile device seriously if it means big money.

Well, it DOES mean big money…but for how long? And I was expecting “BlackBerry” to be a cautionary tale about what greed and pride do to people–instead, it’s more about a great idea that stays a great idea…until someone comes up with a better idea. And how it affects these characters was what kept me engaged throughout the back half of the film.

Jay Baruchel and Matt Johnson are both great as the hopeful entrepreneurs who find themselves in over their heads and in danger of losing their souls in the process. But it’s Glenn Howerton who practically steals the film from everyone he shares the screen with. This guy has so much fun showing the ruthless and reckless natures of this character, who is such a jerk and pretty much a megalomaniac–and he’s never boring; I always looked forward to seeing what he would do next!

“BlackBerry” has a great amount of energy to it, from the documentary-like camerawork to moments that show how the geek-culture unwinds (such as playing/dancing to “Return of the Mack” to celebrate a victory or having “emergency movie night” in the office when things don’t go as planned).

There’s just such a great energy and ambition to this film (from a filmmaker whose last two films were already energetic and ambitious) that I embrace wholeheartedly. I loved “BlackBerry” from beginning to end.

How to Blow Up a Pipeline (2023)

24 Aug

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

There’s a new film now streaming on Hulu that I checked out–and it’s a solid contender for my year-end list. It’s called “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” and it’s a riveting, character-driven, most likely controversial thriller that is set in the here and now but is also in the great tradition of thrillers from the ’70s and ’80s in terms of tone and pacing.

Think less “Sound of Freedom” and more “3 Days of the Condor.”

And I was about ready to call this film “Woke Fetish” when its statements about climate change, eminent domain, and selected sabotage (more property over people so that no one gets hurt) make themselves known fairly early on. But this film values character and ethical interpretation over all else, and so I was never bored.

The film, based on a non-fiction book of the same name, is more or less a political manifesto (or an eco-thriller) done like a heist thriller. It follows a group of environmental activists who have a plan to blow up an oil pipeline–two, actually; one in Texas, the other in California. One of the Texas “eco-warriors” (played by Jake Weary) has a very specific reason for targeting the oil company: to get back at them as they try to run a pipeline through his family homestead by abusing “eminent domain” laws that let governments seize private property for construction projects. The California ringleader (played by the script’s co-writer, Ariela Barer of “Runaways” fame) rallies a group of individuals (a film student, an explosives expert, and others) for a very specific plan after being in the shadows of Long Beach refineries for too long.

Or, as someone cynically puts it: “She reads a book, and suddenly she thinks she can save the world?”

The film is told in non-linear fashion as we begin with the characters about to carry out their plan, and them BAM! We flash back to see where one particular character is coming from. The main story is told chronologically while we randomly get character backgrounds that often get distracting but mostly make way for a unique plot twist or two.

Each of these characters has a reason to join–one has terminal cancer from toxic chemicals and of course the US health system isn’t helpful (this film likes to show connections wherever they can be found); one is a Native American whose people in North Dakota have been given the s**t end of the stick for centuries; one seeks to get away from privilege and further into individualism; and so on. The only one to show any signs of nervousness is the girlfriend of one of the crew (played by Jayme Lawson), who really has no reason to be there except for support.

All of the actors are strong, but I especially liked Forrest Goodluck (whom I’ve liked in films like “The Revenant,” “I Used to Go Here,” and “The Miseducation of Cameron Post”) as Michael, the most extreme member of the bunch, and Kristine Froseth (“Sharp Stick,” “Looking for Alaska”) as Rowan, one-half of a wisecracking Bonnie-and-Clyde duo, who are more like idealized youngsters in over their heads, whose mission is to shut off the pipeline flow–Rowan’s story might arguably be the most complicated, and that’s all I’ll say about that.

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” teaches a good amount of discipline in how revolutionary groups go about these acts of environmental terrorism. Don’t get distracted, don’t mess up, plan ahead, stick to the schedule, etc.–otherwise, these people are likely to get arrested or worse. And what’s important that this film captures is that for all the characters’ talk about why they do all of this, who they compare themselves to while doing this, and, yikes, historical comparisons…these are all just young adults who are still roughly adolescent and think more on instinctive than intellectual levels. And yes, some things go according to plan–but others do not, and they just have to wing it because they’re committed to the cause.

Now, here’s where the film will probably draw controversy: the film doesn’t ask you to judge these people; in fact, it can be argued that it endorses their ideas, which may rub people the wrong way.

But you know what? I’ll take a film that isn’t afraid to take those chances if it means those in big business could be coerced to keep a tighter lid to what is hazardous to people and do the revolutionaries a favor by actually giving a damn about the people–especially when the alternative is a film that simply plays it too safe.

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is available on Hulu.

Shudderbugs

24 May

Smith’s Verdict: ****
Reviewed by Tanner Smith

“Ms. Cole…do you know where you’re going?”

As Sam Cole’s story in “Shudderbugs” begins, she arrives at a secluded farmhouse in Upstate New York. This is a place that feels familiar yet alien at the same time to her: her childhood home, which she hasn’t visited in so long. She was supposed to be here to celebrate an upcoming birthday with her mother. But her mother has died, due to unclear circumstances. Sam looks around the house, soaks in all the familiar surroundings and memories (her bedroom is also decorated with childhood mementos, like drawings and a broken dollhouse), and yet feels uneasy because her mother is not here, she’s not sure what to do next, she doesn’t even know what’s changed around here and what hasn’t, and she doesn’t know how long it will take to get to that particular place of certainty and comfort.

Sam Cole may know where she’s going–but she doesn’t know when she’ll be there.

“Shudderbugs” puts us in Sam’s current place of uneasiness and confusion right from the start (we don’t learn much about where she’s visiting from–we can only speculate from nightly phone calls to someone back home), and it feels so much like a thriller in that sense. Because of that, when new aspects relating to the mother’s death start to pile up (such as Sam’s shady neighbor being the one who discovered the body and Sam not knowing the cause of death while continually calling for a medical examination), I think I know where it’s going.

But as the film continues, I’m more interested in what Sam is feeling throughout all of this than what traditional thriller elements I feared would come along and, while not necessarily “ruin” the proceedings, possibly sour a very interesting character study. While seeing “Shudderbugs” at the Bare Bones International Film & Music Festival in Muskogee, Oklahoma, I’m sitting with intrigue and putting my trust in the filmmaking team behind it that they had created something better than that.

I couldn’t be happier that I did stay with it, because “Shudderbugs” is a remarkably moving and wonderfully made meditation of grief, remorse, and recovery. This is the type of film I would watch even if I was going through grief myself.

I won’t go into further plot details of why Sam is here, what she uncovers, or what that mysterious neighbor Noah (Brennan Brooks) is or was up to–instead, I’ll just say how mesmerized I was by the filmmakers’ ability to balance out thriller and drama so effectively that it feels like a disservice to refer to “Shudderbugs” by either genre. It is that impressive.

Now, about “the filmmakers,” as I keep vaguely referring to them. They are writer-director/co-producer Johanna Putnam, who also stars in a brilliant performance as Sam, and co-producer/cinematographer Brennan Brooks, who plays Noah (and also quite well, I should add). They, along with a skeleton film crew, utilized every bit of their resources to make this film in a farmhouse they had easy access to, made great use of their isolated environment, and crafted a film that is purely from the heart.

I also appreciated that they included levity to even out the story’s grim subject matter. There’s a running gag involving a VA (called Brenda) that doesn’t feel forced and a subplot involving aggravating phone calls with a prying insurance agent, the punchline of which had me applauding in the theater. But there’s also a beautiful scene that begins as a lighthearted moment of frolic and ends as probably the most touching part of the film. (I won’t give it away here, but it involves a butterfly.)

We see Sam Cole struggle with so many emotions, modify so many scenarios as a result, and rise up after continuing to struggle, modify, and learn about herself and her environment. The way the story progresses and the way Johanna Putnam plays the character, I felt like I would follow her anywhere. I was pleased to follow her in “Shudderbugs” and felt grateful to be in her company, to the point to where when she left (i.e., the end credits rolled), I wished her the absolute best–wherever “Ms. Cole” may go.

I loved, loved this film, and I embrace it wholeheartedly. And as soon as it’s released via streaming, I’ll update this article so you can enjoy it too. (And you can keep track of its progress here.)

Personal History

29 Mar

Smith’s Verdict: ****
Reviewed by Tanner Smith

What a special gem this was to behold at the 2023 Kansas City FilmFest International—a wholly original film that made me grin, ponder, and ultimately feel. With a deft and delicate touch given by director/writer/co-star/cinematographer (among other credits to this film alone) Tyler W. Moore, “Personal History” manages to deliver a nicely-observed gentle comedy along the same lines as a Christopher Guest mockumentary crossed into the territory of an existential parable. And I promise to you, I am not making this up…

It even brought a tear to my eye.

Yes, “Personal History” went places that I didn’t expect. And it fooled me, delighted me in doing so, and made me feel things.

“Personal History” is a faux-documentary feature, in which the story is crafted by filmmaker Josh Harmon (Moore). His primary focus is his friend Monica (Samantha Montero), a history major who is researching for a grant and comes across an interesting discovery within a home-building business. Upon close inspection of the business’ photographs from decades past, there seems to be one constant: a man named Arthur D. Perkins (Patrick Poe), who looks exactly the same despite appearing in photos ranging from the 1950s to the modern day.

It’s true, Arthur D. Perkins has not physically aged in over 100 years. As Monica interviews people involved with the business (as documented by Josh, who makes sure to capture on camera everything he feels is important to a certain narrative—the faux-documentary approach really works well here), it’s only by luck that Monica is able to conduct a sit-down interview with Arthur himself.

The initial interview doesn’t quite go as she expected. Despite Arthur having experience serving in both World Wars (WWII was when he started to notice he wasn’t aging), Arthur doesn’t have much to say that is of interest to Monica. But Josh, still documenting the progress, pushes her to dig deeper and capture the true essence of what it means to be immortal.

Where “Personal History” goes from there, I won’t give away. But I will say that where the film goes, once Monica and Josh interview Arthur again and find themselves more into his life, takes the audience along on an emotional journey. We find ourselves questioning the concept of immortality and how we perceive it. We think about how hard it must be to outgrow our loved ones—the best scene in the film illustrates how tough it was for Arthur’s “gift” of immortality to take its toll in his marriage with loving wife Judith (Lolo Loren). (That’s where the aforementioned tear came from.) And when Monica and Josh learn more about what Arthur has done with his long life and how he lives today, they find themselves asking those very questions.

There’s a subplot involving Josh’s sister Mae (Bryna Vogel), with whom he seems to interview with his camera often, that seems ineffectual at first—but then it becomes one of the most emotionally gripping parts of the film. That’s all I’ll say about it.

There are not enough words to describe just how good Patrick Poe is in the role of Arthur. In playing a person who has lived for about 120 years or so, he has the body language down (he moves sort of slowly as if the youth left his looks years or decades ago), he portrays the mix of pain and wisdom in his voice, he makes subtle glances when he’s asked difficult questions, and maintains a calm manner throughout, making me constantly wonder what the character is thinking in this particular moment. I admired Poe’s work in Almost, Sorta, Maybe (which he co-directed with Loren), in which he played a completely different type of character—with “Personal History,” he shows more of his versatility as an actor. He’s great here.

The ending to “Personal History” pulled the rug out from under me (and also a friend who was in the same theater as me). As soon as it was over, I had to approach this talented filmmaker, Tyler W. Moore, and the star, Patrick Poe, both of whom were at the screening I attended, and congratulate them both on a job well done. “Personal History” is a beautiful film.

Magic Mike’s Last Dance (2023)

21 Mar

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

Steven Soderbergh’s 2012 sleeper hit “Magic Mike” was a winning film. It had a good mix of arthouse and mainstream appeals, it took the audience into the world of a male stripper who had other aspirations (it also helped that it was loosely based on its star Channing Tatum’s experiences as a stripper before he became an actor), and I’m sure it also spoke to a certain demographic that just loved to see scantily clad men put on a show in scene-stealing numbers.

I don’t think it needed a sequel, especially one as silly as 2015’s “Magic Mike XXL.” But it was enjoyable enough for what it was, and it was nice seeing Mike in a different light while returning to the spotlight for “one last dance.” (But I still think it would have been more interesting if Cody Horn’s love-interest character from the first film returned–I don’t know what fans were talking about in their hatred towards her.)

Now, over a decade since the original film, we have “Magic Mike’s Last Dance,” which has a mix of the grittiness of the original and some of the wacky antics of the second. (But despite differing tones, all three films feel like they belong in the same universe. Credit for that goes not only to Soderbergh, who produced but didn’t direct the second film and returns to the director’s chair for this one, but also screenwriter Reed Carolin, who wrote all three.)

Maybe it’s because I admire what Soderbergh, Carolin, and returning star Channing Tatum bring to this franchise that I don’t mind the tonal shifts and I still rather enjoyed “Magic Mike’s Last Dance” even more than “Magic Mike XXL.”

When we first see Tatum’s Mike Lane in “Last Dance,” he’s a bartender for a catering company, after the global pandemic caused his furniture business to crash. (I like that this film shows us characters struggling in economic crisis, just as the original “Magic Mike” was a statement about the post-2008 economic crash.) In a fun little cameo appearance, Caitlin Gerard’s Kim returns from the original film as one of Mike’s former clients–Mike pretended to be a cop to put on a show for her. Kim works as a lawyer for business mogul Maxandra “Max” Mendoza (Salma Hayek Pinault), who is hosting the fundraising event for which Mike is tending bar. When Max, who is depressed and struggling herself, hears of Mike’s former vocation (the stripping, not the furniture business), she invites him inside her luxurious Miami estate and pays him to give her a dance.

And does he ever, proving that even in his 40s, Channing Tatum still has some moves. He puts on a hell of a show for Max, and wouldn’t you know it–this is only the beginning…

Max pays Mike to accompany her to London for some time. (But nothing physical is to happen–how much you want to bet something physical does happen between these two? I joke, but Tatum and Hayek do share good chemistry together.) It’s only when Mike is in London with her does he realize why he’s there: to direct a stage show at a theater called the Rattigan, owned by Max’s divorced husband Roger (Alan Cox). Though reluctant at first, Mike accepts Max’s request to turn a stuffy period-piece romance into a wild male-stripper fantasy show with a message of female empowerment.

It’s very much “hey-kids-let’s-put-on-a-show” as Mike and Max bring in new dancers to turn this show into something special. But it’s not as flashy as you’d think–it’s surprisingly subdued in the scenes where they rehearse and put their all into it. Any other film, it’d feel more joyous–but this is “Magic Mike,” after all.

Although, the influence of “Magic Mike XXL” does come in a strange moment where the dancers must convince an uptight bureaucrat on a bus to approve the theatre renovations in preparation for the big finale. That felt a bit out of place in this film, but…eh. It made me laugh, so it gets a pass.

And the show, which takes up the film’s final act, is wild enough that it was worth the wait. It’s well-choreographed, well-shot, and rather exciting.

So maybe “Magic Mike’s Last Dance” isn’t as gritty or as sexy as the original film, but why criticize it as such? I enjoyed it more than “Magic Mike XXL,” which I liked for what it was, and I enjoy “Magic Mike’s Last Dance” for what it is. And even if I can see Mike and Max’s romance coming a mile away, I still applaud it. Mike deserves some happiness in his life–I think Salma Hayek Pinault can give it to him.

But you uptight “Magic Mike” fans better not cause her to be written off like you did for Cody Horn’s character! (Yeah, I don’t think I’ll get over that.)

They Wait in the Dark (2023)

10 Feb

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

To begin my review of Patrick (“I Am Lisa”) Rea’s new micro-budget horror film, “They Wait in the Dark,” I would like to mention how refreshing it is (for me, anyway) when a young child is terrified rather than enchanted by a mysterious, ghostly presence. Does that annoy anyone else, when a kid in a horror film is too dumb to believe this is more than some “imaginary friend”? (Remember Lights Out? The film in which the kid is too scared to sleep at night because of his mother’s malevolent “imaginary friend”? Could we get more of that, please?)

Well, in “They Wait in the Dark,” young Adrian (Patrick McGee) has one strange encounter with an invisible force during his first night in an abandoned house; the following night, he meets it again and repeatedly shouts at it to “GET OUT!”

But, of course, the kid’s mother doesn’t believe there’s anything haunting this house except for bad memories. So, there they stay. Let’s see what happens.

Adrian and his mother, Amy (Sarah McGuire, The Stylist), are fleeing from Amy’s ex-girlfriend, Judith (Laurie Catherine Winkel). We don’t get a lot of backstory of what led to Amy & Adrian’s situation (thankfully, filmmaker Patrick Rea’s script keeps us guessing), but we do get an idea what they’re avoiding as we get the sense that Judith is abusive and unhinged and we also see how good she is with a knife, as well as what happens when one unfortunate trucker catcalls her. (Oh, and Amy is treating what looks like a stab wound at her side. Yeah, I think it’s safe to assume Amy & Adrian are better off without Judith.)

Amy reunites with an old friend, Jenny (Paige Maria), who helps them get refuge at Amy’s old family farmhouse in the middle of nowhere. It’s not Amy’s ideal hiding spot, but it’s also unlikely Judith will find them there. As more about Amy’s troubled past comes to light and her own parenting towards Adrian becomes questionable (for every moment she’s kind towards him, there’s a moment in which she’ll randomly snap at him), it quickly becomes clear to us (and to the kid) that there’s most likely something sinister dwelling in this house.

Who or what is to be feared the most? I love it when a supernatural thriller poses that question. It makes for a film that is as intriguing as it is disturbing, and “They Wait in the Dark” is no exception. The main reason for its effectiveness comes down to the character of Amy–most notably actress Sarah McGuire’s excellent performance as well as director-writer Patrick Rea’s careful guidance. Amy’s enough of a mystery to keep us wondering and enough of a human being to be engaging, and with more than enough complexities for McGuire to tackle head-on. It’s a remarkable character study.

When character and atmosphere share the same importance as terror and gore in a horror film is when I appreciate the filmmaker’s endeavors even more. (“They Wait in the Dark” was made for peanuts in rural Kansas. I can tell this was a labor of love for Rea and his cast/crew–and it looks great too, with help from cinematographer Hanuman Brown-Eagle.) But I don’t want to deny the fear factor either–for instance, the first (visible) sign of the haunting presence pushed me back into my seat the moment it appeared. (Very well-done jump scare.)

From the film’s mysterious opening to its eerie middle to its volatile finale, “They Wait in the Dark” kept me invested in these questions: which threat is to be feared more, whether Adrian will be safe or not, and even whether Amy is to really be trusted or not. I was not disappointed by the answers. And I was grateful to see that this film had a lot more on its mind than I was anticipating.

Almost, Sorta, Maybe (2023)

27 Mar

Smith’s Verdict: ***1/2

Reviewed by Tanner Smith

To start off this review of the indie romcom “Almost, Sorta, Maybe,” I’ll mention the moment in which this film had me and didn’t let me go until the end. It’s a moment that rings true to so many of us who are each trapped in an office job that is as unfulfilling as it is excruciatingly boring, and our protagonist, Liz, tells off her snooty, manipulative boss in such a fashion that results in…well, I won’t give away the surprise that would have made it meaningless had it not been handled with clever execution and care.

10 minutes in, and this moment was a sign. I laughed hard then, laughed many times in the remaining 95 minutes of running time, and kept a smile on my face when I wasn’t laughing.

But more importantly, I also felt for the main character. Liz, played wonderfully by Lindsay Weaver, is stuck in a job she doesn’t like, has gone through a horrible breakup with a creep, puts up with numerous cellphone calls from her nagging mother, and has a terrible self-image problem (“fat and ugly,” she describes herself to her sister Amy [Lauren Pope], a fitness instructor). She’d love to quit her job and pursue her dream to be a photographer. (She even weighs pros and cons of making important decisions–one of the comic highlights of this very funny movie is the way it plays with fantasy sequences.) Oh, and even though she’s not even 30 yet, she’s often referred to as “ma’am” due to her plain appearance.

Sheesh, I barely know this person and by the time the second act begins, I want to tell her it’s all going to be OK!

“Almost, Sorta, Maybe” is the film about Liz’s coming-of-age in quarter-life crisis and how she manages to be comfortable with herself. Thanks to a keenly layered script from filmmaking duo Patrick Poe & Lolo Loren (whose previous film I reviewed, Zoink, was also funny but completely different from this one) and a rich and vibrant performance from Lindsay Weaver, “Almost, Sorta, Maybe” is a romcom (romantic comedy) with refreshingly sharp edges and doesn’t go the usual routes you would expect in your typical comfort-food movie. For example, Liz gets an assistant: David (Zachary Weaver), the one male worker working in the office (much to the delight of the overly flirtatious and predominantly-female staff). You may think you know where the film is going with this character–but not quite. That’s the beauty of this script–both Poe and Loren made a romcom that they wanted to see. The results make the familiar feel fresh.

Patrick Poe, the film’s co-director/co-writer/co-producer/co-cinematographer (let’s just say he and Lolo Loren are both auteurs), gives a comically brilliant performance as Todd, the hunky dumbo with surfer-like blond hair whom Liz practically stalks and, with support from her sister Amy and Amy’s girlfriend Rebecca (Bethany Fay), asks on a date. We spend more time with this dopey character than you would think, and he doesn’t come off as a one-dimensional tool–that’s not to say there aren’t moments in which you’ll groan loudly due to his foolishness, but the groans are more from a relatable feeling than anything else.

Other standouts in the supporting cast include Dianne Paukstelis as Liz’s aforementioned boss Melissa, Casey Jane as the wildly flirty receptionist who smacks David’s behind on his first day of work, Jerad Langley as Liz’s divorced father, and Vilma de Leon as Liz’s overbearing mother whose identity is a unique twist. (I actually would have liked to see a whole movie about this mother character–I would say this part of the film is underdeveloped, but what we do get is quite intriguing.) The film also finds time to explore Liz’s relationships with Amy and Rebecca, and her complicated relationship with an old boyfriend (Richard J. Burt) who may or may not want to seriously start over again.

Wherever “Almost, Sorta, Maybe” goes with Liz, whatever important life decision she makes, whichever guy has eyes for her, I just wish the best for her. She deserves to be happy.

I think she’s going to do just great, and she’ll look back on this long, complicated, funny, sweet journey and pat herself on the back for making it through. And I’m sure Patrick Poe, Lolo Loren, their assistant director Amber Joy, and of course Lindsay Weaver would agree.

The film is now available via streaming.